MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc has affirmed the conviction of a Tondo man for illegal possession of a firearm, ruling that a warrantless search is valid when it follows a lawful arrest for violating a city ordinance that carries a penalty of imprisonment. In a Decision promulgated on March 4, 2025, and penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Court clarified that while warrantless arrests are generally prohibited for minor infractions punishable only by fines, they are legally sound for offenses where jail time is a possible penalty.
The case involves Alfonso C. Patotoy, who was apprehended on April 9, 2018, by police officers patrolling along Hermosa Street in Tondo, Manila. The officers caught Patotoy drinking beer near the railroad tracks, which is a violation of Manila City Ordinance No. 5555, a local law prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages in public places. Upon informing Patotoy of his violation and his constitutional rights, a police officer conducted a frisk that led to the discovery of a loaded .38 caliber revolver tucked into his waistband. Patotoy, who lacked the necessary license for the weapon, claimed the firearm was planted, but both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Distinguishing Fine-Only Offenses from Arrestable Crimes
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Patotoy challenged the legality of his warrantless arrest and the subsequent search, arguing the gun was inadmissible as evidence. The Supreme Court, however, highlighted a critical distinction in the law regarding warrantless arrests for ordinance violations. The Court noted that in previous cases, such as those involving traffic violations or urinating in public, arrests and incidental searches were declared illegal because the underlying offenses were punishable solely by fines. Under the Rules of Court, a person cannot be arrested for a “fine-only” offense.
However, the Court pointed out that Manila City Ordinance No. 5555 is different because it imposes both a fine and imprisonment ranging from fifteen days to six months. Because the ordinance allows for a prison sentence, the police had the authority to effect an in flagrante delicto arrest. Consequently, the subsequent frisk was a valid “search incidental to a lawful arrest,” making the seized firearm and ammunition admissible as evidence in court.
Chain of Custody and the Identification of Unique Evidence
The Supreme Court also addressed Patotoy’s argument regarding the “chain of custody,” a rule often applied in drug cases to ensure evidence is not tampered with. The Court reiterated its ruling in People v. Olarte, stating that the strict chain of custody rule does not apply to firearms and ammunition in the same way it does to amorphous substances like narcotics. Because a firearm is a “unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change” object, its authenticity can be established through the testimony of a witness with personal knowledge. The Court found that the police officers sufficiently demonstrated that the gun presented in court was the same one seized from Patotoy.
The High Tribunal affirmed the sentence of eight years and eight months to ten years and eight months of prision mayor. Despite upholding the conviction, the Court noted a recent update from the Bureau of Corrections stating that Patotoy has already served his maximum sentence. In light of this, while his criminal record stands, the Court ordered his immediate release from custody, unless he is being held for other legal causes. The ruling serves as a significant clarification on the limits of police power and the protections of the Bill of Rights, emphasizing that the validity of a warrantless search often hinges on the specific penalties prescribed by the local law that triggered the arrest.
