Scribd
Upload
262 views2 pages

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROLANDO DE GRACIA, CHITO HENSON and JOHN DOES, Accused. ROLANDO DE GRACIA, Accused-Appellant

The military conducted surveillance of a Eurocar Sales Office due to intelligence that it was being used as a communication command post by rebel forces. During surveillance, men from the office fired at the surveillance team. On December 5, 1989, with no search warrant due to courts being closed and the area experiencing disorder and firing, the military raided the office. They found ammunition, explosives, and the appellant suspiciously peering out a door. The court upheld the valid search and seizure, finding probable cause, crime being committed, and inability to obtain a warrant due to the exigent circumstances of the coup.

Uploaded by

Charles Roger Raya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
262 views2 pages

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROLANDO DE GRACIA, CHITO HENSON and JOHN DOES, Accused. ROLANDO DE GRACIA, Accused-Appellant

The military conducted surveillance of a Eurocar Sales Office due to intelligence that it was being used as a communication command post by rebel forces. During surveillance, men from the office fired at the surveillance team. On December 5, 1989, with no search warrant due to courts being closed and the area experiencing disorder and firing, the military raided the office. They found ammunition, explosives, and the appellant suspiciously peering out a door. The court upheld the valid search and seizure, finding probable cause, crime being committed, and inability to obtain a warrant due to the exigent circumstances of the coup.

Uploaded by

Charles Roger Raya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ROLANDO DE GRACIA, CHITO HENSON and JOHN


DOES, accused. ROLANDO DE GRACIA, accused-appellant.
233 SCRA 716

Facts: The incidents took place at the height of the coup d'etat staged in December, 1989 by ultra-
rightist elements headed by the Reform the Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People
(RAM-SFP) against the Government.

EfrenSoria of Intelligence Division, NCR Defense Command, together with his team, conducted a
surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office in EDSA, QC on early morning of December 1, 1989, which
surveillance actually started November 30, 1989 at around 10:00 PM. Such surveillance was conducted
pursuant to an intelligence report that the said establishment was being occupied by the elements of
the RAM-SFP as communication command post.

Near the Eurocar office, there were crowd watching the on-going bombardment near Camp Aguinaldo
when a group of 5 men disengaged themselves and walked towards their surveillance car. Maj. Soria
ordered the driver to start the car and leave the area. However, as they passed the area, then 5 men
drew their guns and fired at them, which resulted to the wounding of the driver. Nobody in the
surveillance team retaliated for they were afraid that civilians might be caught in the crossfire.

Thereafter, on the morning of December 5, 1989, a search team raided the Eurocar Sales Office and
confiscated 6 cartons of M-16 ammunition, 5 bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different calibers,
and molotov.

Obenia, who first entered the establishment, found De Gracia in the office of a certain Col. Matillano,
holding a C-4 and suspiciously peeping though door.

No search warrant was secured by the raiding team because, according to them, there was so much
disorder considering that the nearby Camp Aguinaldo was being mopped up by the rebel forces and
there was simultaneous firing within the vicinity of the Eurocar office, aside from the fact that the courts
were consequently closed.

Issue: Whether the military operatives made a valid search and seizure during the height of the
December 1989 coup d’etat.

HELD: YES, there was a valid search and seizure in this case.It is admitted that the military operatives
who raided the Eurocar Sales Office were not armed with a search warrant at that time. The raid was
actually precipitated by intelligence reports that said office was being used as headquarters by the RAM.
Prior to the raid, there was a surveillance conducted on the premises wherein the surveillance team was
fired at by a group of men coming from the Eurocar building. When the military operatives raided the
place, the occupants thereof refused to open the door despite the requests for them to do so, thereby
compelling the former to break into the office. The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not a gun store and
it is definitely not an armory or arsenal which are the usual depositories for explosives and ammunition.
It is primarily and solely engaged in the sale of automobiles. The presence of an unusual quantity of
high-powered firearms and explosives could not be justifiably or even colorably explained. In addition,
there was general chaos and disorder at that time because of simultaneous and intense firing within the
vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel forces. The
courts in the surrounding areas were obviously closed and, for that matter, the building and houses
therein were deserted. Under the foregoing circumstances, the case falls under one of the exceptions to
the prohibition against a warrantless search. In the first place, the military operatives, taking into
account the facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being
committed. There was consequently more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action.
Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to apply for and
secure a search warrant from the courts. The trial judge himself manifested that on 5 December 1989
when the raid was conducted, his court was closed. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a
search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.

You might also like