afiepuhlit of the ifihiltppinefi

éupreme QEuurt
manila

SECOND DIVISION

ANGELITO RIDON y G.R. No. 252396

GUEVARRA,
Petitioner, Present:

LEONEN, S.A.J. , Chairperson,

LAZARO—JAVIER,
-versus- LOPEZ, M.,
LOPEZ, J., and
KHO, JR., JJ.

PEOPLE OF THE Promulgated:

PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. DEC 0

1) E C I s I o N

M. LOPEZ, J.:

Assailed in this case is the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 41204, which upheld the Decision3 dated
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting Angelito G. Ridon (Angelito)
of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.

' Rollo, pp. 30-43. The Decision in (SA-G.R. CR No. 41204 was penned by Associate Justice Marie
Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and
Gabriel T. Robeninl of the Special Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2 Id. at 98—10].
3 1d. a158—64. The DeciSion in Criminal Case No. 14-309 was penned by Presiding Judge Eugene C. Paras
of Branch 58, Regional Trial Court, Makati City.
Decision 2 GR. No. 252396

Antecedents

Angelito was charged with violation of Republic Act No. 10591,4

otherwise known as the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition
Regulation Act. The Information reads:

On the 2"d day of August 2013, in the City of Makati, the [sic]
Philippines, accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and control one cal.38
revolver without serial number, and with six live ammunitions, which he
carried outside of his residence without first securing the necessary license
or permit thereof, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.5

Upon arraignment, Angelito pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits

ensued.6

The prosecution presented Police Officer 111 Sherwin Clete Limbauan

(P03 Limbauan), Bantay Bayan Manolito Crisolo Buesa (Bantay Bayan
Buesa), and P03 Harley Manguin Abuan (P03 Abuan). Their collective
testimonies narrated that, while P03 Limbauan, P03 Mike Lester Pacis (P03
Pacis), and Bantay Bayan Buesa were patrolling on board a police mobile car
at Macopa Street, Barangay Comembo, Makati City, around 3:30 am. on
August 2, 2023, they chanced upon Angelito, who was driving a motorcycle.
P03 Pacis ordered Angelito to stop because Macopa Street was a one-way
street, but instead of stopping, Angelito took a u-turn and drove towards
Lanzones Street.7

The police officers and Bantay Bayan Buesa chased Angelito and
cornered him at Lanzones Street. Angelito then fell along with his motorcycle.
As he stood up, Angelito acted as if he would pull something from his side,
an act that prompted Bantay Bayan Buesa to grab Angelito. Meanwhile, P03
Limbauan and P03 Pacis pulled their guns and pointed at Angelito. P03
Limbauan ordered Angelito not to move while P03 Pacis frisked Angelito
and recovered a .38 caliber revolver without a serial number, loaded with six
ammunition. Consequently, the police officers arrested Angelito. They
informed him of his constitutional rights and brought him to Police
Community Precinct 9 for processing. P03 Pacis marked the firearm and the
ammunition in the presence of P03 Limbauan and Angelito. After that, they
went to the Makati City Criminal Investigation Section where they turned over
the case and the firearm to the Investigator, Special Police Officer II Rodrigo

4 Entitled “An Act Providing, for a Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunition and Providing
Penalties for Violations Thereof" (2012).
Rollo, p. 58.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 31-32, 58—60.
Decision 3 GR. No. 252396

Igno (SP02 Igno). P03 Abuan, the evidence custodian, confirmed that he
received the gun and ammunition presented during trial from SP02 Igno.8

For his part, Angelito denied the allegations against him and claimed
that he saw the gun for the first time at the police station. He narrated that he
was on his way to buy balut in Pateros in the early morning of August 2, 2013
when the police officers flagged him as he was about to turn at Lanzones
Street in Makati City. He then parked his motorcycle and alighted from it.
Angelito claimed that the police officers asked him to go to the police station
with them. When he asked why, one of the police officers allegedly punched
him in the gut. He was then brought to the hospital before going to the police
station. Once at the police station, the officers asked if his wife or anybody in
his house had money. Angelito called his wife, who later arrived at the police
station and talked to the police officers. Afterward, Angelito was brought to
the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) in Ayala Avenue
where he was charged with illegal possession of firearm. Angelito averred that
he did not file a case against the police officers because he did not know how
to. However, he executed an Affidavit regarding the extortion and gave it to
his lawyer.9

Angelito’s live-in partner Olive D. Sabile (Olive) corroborated

Angelito’s testimony and confirmed that she received a phone call from
'Angelito asking her to go to the police station. There, the police officers
informed her that Angelito entered a one-way street and demanded PHP
15,000.00 from her. She went home but was unable to raise the amount asked.
Olive then returned to the police station where she was told that her husband
would be brought to the CIDG. Upon arriving at the CIDG, the police showed
them the firearm allegedly recovered from Angelito. Olive did not file a case
for the unlawful arrest of her husband because she was afraid.'°

RTC Decision

On January 3, 2018, the RTC convictedll Angelito of illegal possession

of firearm and ammunition.'2 The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to
establish the existence of the firearm and Angelito’s possession thereof
without a license, thus:

Based on the evidence, the accused was in possession of Cal.38 loaded with
ammunition and he is not a registered licensed [sic] holder thereof. [T]his
was recovered by policemen P03 Pacis and P01 Limbauan[,] along with
Bantay Bayan Manolito Buesa on August 2, 2013, when the accused was
about to draw the firearm from his waistline when he was cornered by the

3 Id. at 32, 59—60.

9 Id. at 33, 60—6l.
'0 Id. at 33, 6I—62.
” Id. at 58—64.
'2 Id. at 64.
Decision 4 GR. No. 252396

policemen and Bantay Bayan Buesa in Lanzones Street. Besides, the fact
[that] the accused sped up when ordered stopped [sic] by police officers
indicated that he was then doing or hiding something illegal. This act of
[the] accused prompted the police to react and chase [him] and eventually
confiscated [sic] the firearm from [him].

Thus, the prosecution has established all the requisites of illegal

possession of firearm because the existence of the firearm and the fact that
the accused was in possession thereof without [a] license were duly proven.
The court finds the testimony of the three (3) witnesses of the prosecution
credible[,] being straightforward and substantially in accord with one
another.'3

Further, the RTC did not lend credence to Angelito’s defense that the
evidence was planted as he did not file a case against the police officers. The
RTC also found that his extortion claim was unsupported.l4 Hence, Angelito
was sentenced to suffer the following penalties:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court renders

JUDGMENT finding the accused ANGELITO GUEVARRA RIDON
GUILTY of the crime charge of violation of RA. No. 10591 (Illegal
Possession of Firearm and Ammunition) beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the accused Angelito Guevarra Ridon, after applying
Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103), is SENTENCED to suffer an
imprisonment of prision mayor in its medium period or Eight [8) Years
and One (1] Day to Ten (10] Years of imprisonment.

SO ORDERED.” (Emphasis in the original)

Angelito appealedl6 his conviction to the CA, arguing that his right
against unreasonable search and seizure was violated considering that the
prosecution failed to prove that he violated a traffic rule or ordinance.l7

CA Decision

In the assailed Decision,‘8 the CA ruled that the warrantless search on

Angelito was justified because it was incidental to a lawful arrest.19 The CA
observed that the police officers have probable cause to frisk and arrest
Angelito, to wit:

'3 Id. at 62—63.

'4 Id. at 63.
'5 Id. at 64.
"’ Id. at 44—-57, Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated August 31. 2018.
'7 Id. at 50—53. '
'8 Id. at 30—43.
'9 Id. at 37—38.
Decision . 5 GR. No. 252596

In the present case, prosecution witnesses P03 Limbauan and

Bantay Bayan Buesa are consistent in their claim that appellant was
seen entering a one-way street and when he was flagged down, he did
not pull over. Instead, he sped away and even tried to draw his gun when
he was cornered.

Clearly, the police officers and Bantay Bayan Buesa conducted a

valid in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest on appellant, thus, making
the consequent search incidental thereto valid as well. It must be stressed
that the offense of illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum
punished by a special law and, in order that one may be found guilty of a
violation thereof, it is sufficient that the accused had no authority or license
to possess a firearm, and that he intended to possess the same, even if such
possession was made in good faith and without a criminal intent. In one
case, it was held that the carrying of firearms and ammunition without the
requisite authorization is enough basis for the conduct of a valid inflagrante
delicto warrantless arrest.20 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

The CA upheld the RTC’s decision with modification on the penalty

imposed since the firearm was loaded, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby

DENIED. '

Accordingly, the Decision dated 03 January 2018 rendered by

Branch 58, RTC of Makati City, in Criminal Case No. 14-309 is
AFFIRMED with modification as regards the penalty imposed.

Accused-appellant ANGELITO RIDON [y] GUEVARRA is

sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years, eight (8) months
and one (1) day ofprision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to ten
(10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor in its
maximum period, as maximum.

SO ORDERED.2| (Emphasis in the original)

Hence, this Petition.22 Petitioner Angelito G. Ridon insists that the CA

erred in convicting him because there was no valid inflagram‘e delicto arrest
to justify the warrantless search. He maintains that the police officers cornered
and frisked him even before he was arrested for any offense. Petitioner also
avers that there was no evidence showing that he committed any crime,
violated any law or ordinance, or acted in a manner as to arouse any suspicion
when the police officers started chasing him. He adds that the police officers
did not see any firearm on him. Thus, he was not yet under arrest when the
police officers searched him. Angelito further claims that even if the
prosecution’s version were true, the firearm is inadmissible for being the fruit
of a poisonous tree.23

2° Id. at 37—38.
2' Id. at 42.
22 Id. at l I—23.
23 Id. at 18—22.
Decision 6 GR. No. 252396

On the other hand, the People of the Philippines, through the Office of
the Solicitor General, contend that the Petition must be dismissed for raising
questions of fact. At any rate, the People argue that the CA properly affirmed
Angelito’s conviction since his unUSual conduct of speeding away when the
police officers flagged him down gave the latter a reasonable belief that he
may have something illegal or that criminal activity may be afoot. The People
further aver that P03 Limbauan consistently stated that Angelito was about to
draw a gun. This called for the immediate disarming of Angelito to ensure the
safety of the police officers before Angelito’s arrest.24

Ruling of the Court

The petition is meritorious.

On the procedural aspect, a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 must

only raise questions of law.25 However, the Court may entertain questions of
fact when the judgment being assailed is based on a misapprehension of facts
as in this case.26

The general rule is that searches and seizures must be carried out with
a warrant issued based on probable cause. Otherwise, applying the
exclusionary rule, any evidence obtained is inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding. While this principle admits of exceptions, namely: (1)
'warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; (2) seizure of evidence in plain
view; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search; (5)
customs search; (6) stop-and-frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency
circumstances,” none applies in this case.

Contrary to the CA’s findings, the warrantless search on Angelito Was

not incidental to a lawful arrest. Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court
states that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons
or anything that may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of
an offense without a search warrant. Indeed, there must first be a lawful arrest
before a warrantiess search and seizure can be made. The process cannot be
reversed.28 In Malacat v. CA,29 the Court explained a search incidental to a
lawful arrest in this wise:

2‘ ld.atl|O—ll3.
25 RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 1.
3" Picardal v. People, 854 Phil. 575, 581 (2019) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division], citing Cereno v. Court
ofAppeals, 695 Phil. 820, 828 (2012) [Per 1. Perez, Second Division].
27 People v. Arum, 351 Phil. 868, 879—4380 (1998) [Per .1. Romero, Third Division].
2“ Homar v. People, 768 Phil. 195, 203 (201 5) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
2" 347 Phil. 462, 480 (1997) [Per .1. Davide, Jr., En Banc].
Decision ' ' 7 ' GR. No. 252396

In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest

determines the validity of the incidental search, the legality of the arrest is
questioned in a large majority of these cases, [e.g.], whether an arrest was
merely used as a pretext for conducting a search. In this instance, the law
requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made—
the process cannot be reversed. At bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the
arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area
within which the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to
destroy, and seize any money or property found which was used in the
commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that which may be
used as evidence, or'which might furnish the arrestee with the means of
escaping or committing violence.30 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Thus, a warrantless search and seizure incidental to a lawful arrest is

valid when: (a) the accused was lawfiilly arrested; (b) the arresting officers
subsequently made a warrantless search; (e) the search is limited to the person
of the accused and the area within the accused’s immediate control; and (d)
the search was performed at the place of the arrest.

Essentially, a lawful arrest must precede the warrantless search.“

Arrest is the taking of a person into custody so that he or she may be bound to
answer for the commission ofan offense.32 One ofthe instances when a person
may be lawfully arrested without a warrant is the inflagrante delicto arrest——
as when a person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime.33 To be valid, an inflagrante delicto arrest must
comply with the following requisites: (a) the person to be arrested must
execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b) the overt act is done
. in the presence or within the arresting officer’s view.34

In Angelito’s case, the overt acts that prompted the police officers to
arrest him were his attempt to flee and his supposed act of drawing something
from his waist.35 During his direct examination, P03 Limbauan testified that
when Angelito stood up, he acted like he would draw something from his side,
so they frisked him. After that, they discovered the firearm and arrested him.36
This shows that the gun was not yet apparent when they searched Angelito.
Although P03 Limbauan later changed this statement,37 the other witness
Bantay Bayan Buesa admitted that he did not see what Angelito drew from
his waistline despite being the one holding him during the search.38 This
confirms P03 Limbauan’s first statement that they were not certain about
what Angelito was going to draw from his waist until they performed the

3" Id.
3' Veridiano v. People, 810 Phil. 642, 657 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
‘2 RULES or COURT, Rule 1 13, sec. 1.
’3 RULES OF COURT, Rule 1 13, sec. 5(a).
3“ People v. Comprado, 829 Phil. 229, 244 (2018) [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
35 Rollo, pp. 32, 59.
3" Id. at 59.
37 1d.
3“ Id. at 60.
Decision 8 GR. No. 252396

search. Put simply, the arresting officers were not yet aware that Angelito was
carrying a firearm when they decided to search him.

Notably, the CA’s application39 and the People’s reliance40 on People

v. Abrz’ol,41 are misplaced. In Abriol, the Court held that the act of carrying
firearms and ammunition, without the requisite authorization, is enough basis
to conduct an inflagram‘e delicto arrest.42 However, it should be stressed that
the warrantless search in Abriol was preceded by a shooting incident,43 unlike
in this case. Considering that the arresting officers were aware of the shooting
incident and that the accused were armed44 in Abriol, the arrest done in
flagrante delicto was justified, along with the subsequent warrantless search
and seizure of the subject firearms.

As an adjunct to the above discussion, the Court decrees that the

warrantless search on Angelito cannot be justified by his alleged traffic
violation. A survey of jurisprudence will show that violating ordinances and
regulations alone is insufficient to trigger a valid warrantless search and
seizure, especially when the penalty does not involve imprisonment.

In Luz v. People,45 the Court ruled that a warrantless search incidental

to a lawfiil arrest is inapplicable because there was no valid arrest preceding
the search. While there can be an arrest for a traffic violation, the Court noted
that the arresting officer did not intend to deprive the accused Luz ofhis liberty
when he was flagged down for driving a motorcycle without a helmet.46
Hence, the Court held that the items seized during the search were
inadmissible:

At the time that he was waiting for P03 Alteza to write his citation
ticket, petitioner could not be said to have been “under arrest.” There was
no intention on the part of P03 Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his
liberty, or take him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the
period during which petitioner was at the police station may be
characterized merely as waiting time. In fact, as found by the trial court,
P03 Alteza himself testified that the only reason they went to the police
sub-station was that petitioner had been flagged down “almost in front” of
that place. Hence, it was only for the sake of convenience that they were
waiting there. There was no intention to take petitioner into custody.

39 Id. at 38.
‘0 Id. at ll4—-l 15.
4‘ 419 Phil. 609, 635—636 (200]) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
‘2 Id. at 635.
‘3 Id.
4“ Id. at 618—619.
‘5 683 Phil. 399, 406 (2012) [Per J. Sereno, Second Division].
‘6 Id. at 407.
I Decision 9 GR. No. 252396

[Tlhere being no valid arrest, the warrantless search that

resulted from it was likewise illegal.47 (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)

The same principle was applied in acquitting the accused in Picardal v.

People.48 There, the accused was arrested for urinating in public in violation
of an MMDA Regulation.49 The infraction was punishable only by a fine and
not imprisonment, thus, the ensuing arrest was held unlawfiil.50 For this
reason, the firearm recovered from the accused could not be used in any
prosecution5| pursuant to Article 111, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution.52

Similarly, in Mendoza v. People,53 the Court ruled that there was no

valid arrest justifying the eventual search and seizure of the firearm. In that
.case, the police officers flagged an unregistered motorcycle used by the
accused and his companions who were not wearing helmets.54 The traffic
violation did not call for an arrest, as it merely warranted the confiscation of
the driver’s license of the accused.55 There being no lawful arrest, there was
also no warrantless search and seizure of the firearm to speak of.56

In this case, the penalty for entering a one—way street is not

imprisonment.57 Hence, the police officers could not have intended to arrest
Angelito when they chased him for entering a one-way street. In other words,
the basis of the police officers for pursuing Angelito was a mere violation of
traffic rules. Regardless of Angelito’s guilt in entering the one-way street, he
was not yet under arrest when the police officers pursued him. Thus, they had
no basis in subsequently performing a warrantless search on Angelito.

Significantly, the warrantless search is also unjustifiable under stop-

and—frisk which allows a police officer who observes suspicious or unusual
conduct, which leads him to believe that a criminal act may be afoot, to
approach a person to investigate.”' There must be two or more suspicious
circumstances, the totality of which would then create a reasonable inference

‘7 Id.
48 854 Phil. 575, 583—584 (2019) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
49 Id. at 578L579.
5° Id. at 582—585.
5‘ Id. at 585.
52 CONST., art. ”I, sec. 3.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
53 843 Phil. 88], 890-89] (2018) [Per 1. A. Reyes, Jr., Second Division].
5‘ Id. at 884-885.
55 Id. at 89] .
5" Id. at 890—89 l.
. 5" Joint Metro Manila Traffic Circular No. l (2023).
58 Luz v. People, 683 Phil. 399, 412 (20l2) [Peri Sereno, Second Division]; and Manalili v. CA, 345 Phil.
632, 644 (I997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
 Decision 10 GR. No. 252396

of criminal activity, to compel the arresting officer to investigate further.59 A

mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a stop-and—frisk.60

In the cases of People v. Solayao,6i Manalili v. CA,62 and Manibog v.

People,63 the Court upheld the validity of warrantless stop-and—frisk searches.
In Solayao, the operatives went to verify reports of armed persons roaming
around Biliran. While patrolling, the Operatives noticed a group of drunk men,
one of whom was wearing a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit. Upon seeing
the operatives, the drunken men fled, but the one carrying dried coconut leaves
got left behind. One of the operatives introduced himself and seized the
coconut leaves containing a homemade firearm.64

Meanwhile, in Manalili, the police officers conducted surveillance

based on information that drug addicts were wandering in the vicinity of
Kalookan City Cemetery. During the surveillance, they chanced upon a
person who appeared high on drugs because of his reddish eyes and unstable
manner of walking. The person tried to avoid them, but they stopped and
questioned him. The police officers ordered him to show his hands. He then
gave his wallet to one ofthe policemen, who found marijuana residue inside.65

In Manibag, the police officers likewise acted on information that the

accused was carrying a gun outside the Municipal Tourism Office during the
election gun ban. Before approaching the accused, they observed that he had
a suspicious-looking bulge protruding under his shirt and around his waist.
Based on the experience of the po1ice officers, a firearm has a distinct contour
when tucked in the waist.66 The Court concluded that these circumstances led
to a reasonable suspicion that the accused was carrying a gun and provided a
genuine reason for the police officers to conduct a stop-and-frisk search on
the petitioner.67

. It is apparent in Solayao, Manalili, and Manibog that the accused were

already acting suspiciously even before the authorities approached them. To
be sure, the following requisites were present and justified in a stop-and-frisk
search: (a) there were two or more reasonable suspicious circumstances
involving the accused; (b) the arresting officers observed the suspicious
circumstances before approaching the accused; and (c) the purpose of the
police officers in approaching the accused was to investigate. '

5" Manibog v. People, 850 Phil. 103, I 18 (2019) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; and Telen v. People, 864
Phil. 1 103, ] 117(2019) [Per.1. Leonen, Third Division].
6° Malacat v. CA, 347 Phil. 462, 481 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].
6' 330 Phil. 81 I, 818—819 (1996) [Per J. Romero, Second Division].
62 345 Phil. 632, 643—647(1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
(’3 850 Phil. 103, 120 (2019) [Per .1. Leonen, Third Division].
“4 330 Phil. 811. 814—815 (1996) [Per J. Romero, Second Division].
65 345 Phil. 632, 638 (1997) [Per .1. Panganiban, Third Division].
6“ 850 Phil. 103, 107—108 (2019) [Peri Leonen, Third Division].
. 67 Id. at 120.
Decision l 1 GR. No. 252396

In contrast, none of these factors exist in Angelito’scase. On the first

requirement, Angelito’s attempt to flee when flagged for a traffic violation
cannot be considered a suspicious circumstance as it does not necessarily
indicate guilt for concealing any illegal or prohibited item. We cannot
discount the possibility that the accused simply did not want to be
apprehended for violating the traffic rules because it entails the confiscation
of his driver’s license and payment of fines.

Similarly, Angelito’s act of drawing something from his waist does not
constitute a reasonable suspicious circumstance. Neither the RTC nor the CA
found that the police officers observed any distinct bulge or contour that could
have led them to believe that what Angelito was about to draw was a gun.
Thus, their decision to conduct a warrantless search on Angelito was based
only on a hunch—not on a reasonable suspicion.

Even if the Court considers these circumstances as reasonably

suspicious, the second requirement is still absent because the attempt to flee
and draw happened after the police officers approached Angelito. In other
words, Angelito’s actions were his intuitive response to the conduct ofthe law
enforcers. Unlike in a valid stop—and-frisk case where the accused acted
suspiciously even before the authorities approached, Angelito’s supposed
suspicious deeds merely resulted from the actions of the police officers.

Under the circumstances, the warrantless search and seizure of the

firearm from Angelito is deemed invalid. Following the exclusionary rule,68
the illegality of the search and seizure means that there is no admissible
evidence left to convict Angelito. His acquittal is in order.69

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated

October 4, 2019 and the Resolution dated March 13, 2020 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41204 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioner ANGELITO RIDON y GUEVARRA is ACQUITTED.

Let entry ofjudgment be issued immediately.

6” CONST., art. Ill, sec. 3(2).

‘9 People v. Cogaed, 740 Phil. 212, 241—242 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
ifhtcigion‘ E?” ‘ GR. No. 252396

”£1.45 x735"? MAC 5“, Uifil‘v Eh;

Serum Assaciate justice

. .
AMY, ,. AZA F14 )afiAV5 ER $3305“) . AZWEZ
Associate- Justice Associate 1:132:10:

. ,. , M .
t ,) ~.- 03 I: l‘£l~§¢3,.%\
Asseciate Justice

ATTESTATIGN

1 attest that the Lonclusions ix: :"m: :1‘00 w: Desigim had been Icaci‘mci in
consultation. beibre the. case. was assigned to the wriin‘r :H. the opinion 4,;1’t‘rm
Court’s Division.

’ ’ . LEEJQNKC. ‘
:31}: v“ ‘--*;-‘\7r' 5‘ y-‘:nq
obi-1%? -' '- Audie J.:-I.l\.“..-

'f-"Df: ‘33-} F'

Decision GR. No. 252396

"v—
43? it"?! if} 6:132 TRON

Pursuant to Articie V2! '2. 52:32:23: 3 I- ci‘211e Constitution and the Division
Chaixperson’s Attesmtion, E certify 22231 the. cormiusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consuhsiiion beta-22‘: the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Coun’s Di\'i:;im':.

.3 (3.. GESMUNDO
Chief Justice