Purely Police Business

Hole of Justice

By Peter G. Jimenea

Purely Police Business

Supreme Court: “In the performance of his peace and order functions, the Punong Barangay is entitled to possess and carry firearm within his territorial jurisdiction subject to appropriate rules and regulations on the possession and carrying of firearms.” ( G.R. No. 190569, April 25, 2012).

This land mark decision can be trace back to August 6, 2008, when P/Insp. Ariel S. Artillero, Chief of Police of Ajuy, Iloilo and his two policemen arrested Lanjagan Punong Barangay Edito Aguillon,for carrying an Armalite rifle with license card but no permit to carry firearm outside the residence (PTCFOR).

A case for illegal possession of firearm was filed against Aguillon by the arresting officers. In his Counter-Affidavit, the barangay captain claimed he is authorized by law to carry firearm within his area of jurisdiction but was unlawfully arrested and detained by the police officers.

The case drags for almost four years until this land mark decision was handed down by the SC acquitting Punong Barangay Aguillon. But it did not end there as Aguillon filed criminal and administrative cases against P/Insp. Artillero.

There were allegations that the police officer has committed violation of domicile against some residents of Barangay Lanjagan and are now being prepared to be slapped against him. The other is a kidnapping case that name P/Insp. Artillero the respondent.

I smell something wrong in the continuing filing of cases against the police officer that somebody wants to make his life miserable. Could that somebody be a person badly offended by P/Insp. Artillero? This is what got me so interested to know about.

One that should be taken into consideration is the alleged violation of domicile against P/Insp. Artillero. Perhaps, the police officer may have inadvertently overlooked that he has committed an act or acts against the law.

As laid down, the Supreme Court values the liberty of the citizens and will always insists on the observance of the basic Constitutional rights as a condition sine qua non against the awesome investigative and prosecutory powers of the government.

The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot by itself override the constitutional right of the citizens. The right of the people to be secured in person, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure shall be inviolable.

A Search Warrant, not a Warrant of Arrest is required before the law enforcers can validly search or seize a person, house, papers or effects of any individual. The law attaches to it ART. III Sec. 3 (2) that any evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in Court.

This might be one of the reasons why so many drug cases that had been filed were dismissed by the Court. It’s not absolute though. The well-recognized instances where search and seizure are allowed even without a valid warrant are warrantless search incidental to lawful arrest.

Elements are: a) prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are present in pursuit of their official duties; b) the evidence was discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and d) the plain view justified seizure of evidence without further search.

The PNP is indeed between us and crime. But policemen must have a continuing education. We already heard a lot of police officers who deliberate or not, have stepped-over-the line of pardonable behavior. This is a shame to the PNP uniform they are so proud of!

What fate awaits P/Insp. Artillero, nobody knows. But this mess has changed his life from being the hunter to the hunted. This is purely police business but I hope to have made your day in this column. The time asks for it, unlike me who waits for others to make my day!