G.R. No. 236548

Ruling

Accordingly, the operatives arrested Ruben and brought him for inquest proceedings. The public prosecutor found probable cause against Ruben and charged him with illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions before the RTC docketed as Criminal Case No. 5002-18, thus: That on or about 3:50 in the morning of October 24, 2013, at Brgy. Gaang, municipality of Currimao, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody, a high powered firearm, one Colt Caliber .45 Pistol with Serial No. 421003; three (3) magazines of Cal. 45; one live ammunition for Caliber 9mm; twenty-three (23) live ammunitions for Cal. 45; one live ammunition for Cal. M14; and one inside holster for Cal. 45, without first securing the necessary license, authority or permit to possess firearms and ammunitions from the proper authorities concerned. CONTRARY TO LAW. Ruben pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, Ruben moved to suppress the evidence claiming that the firearm and ammunitions are inadmissible. The confiscated items were not described in the search warrant which is limited only to the seizure of a 9mm caliber pistol. The phrase "among other firearms" mentioned in the search warrant constituted a general warrant that is void under the law for lack of particularity in the description of the items to be seized. Lastly, the authorities recovered the items only after they asked Ruben to open the closed cabinet. Whereas, the prosecution contended that the firearm and ammunitions are admissible in evidence. The police officers seized the contraband in plain view when enforcing the search warrant. In due course, the RTC denied the motion to suppress evidence and held that the merits of the parties' arguments "can only be ventilated by the presentation of their respective evidence." At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated that the case involved no other factual questions except on whether "the seizure of the items not listed in the Search Warrant may be justified under the Plain View Doctrine." The RTC then required the parties to submit their memoranda. Ruben maintained that the seizure of evidence in plain view is present only if there is a valid intrusion based on lawful warrantless arrest. The police officers must not be searching evidence against the accused but inadvertently discovered the incriminating object. In this case, the seizure of the firearm and ammunitions resulted from the implementation of the search warrant. On the other hand, the prosecution insisted that the operatives seized the items in plain view. The enforcement of the search warrant gave the police officers prior valid justification to enter Ruben's house. The authorities inadvertently and incidentally came across the contrabands during the implementation of the search warrant. In any event, the operatives recovered one magazine and one live