Zacarias Magoncia (Recurrente aka Appellant) Appellant) vs Perfecto Palacio (Recurridos aka Appellee) Date: April Date: April 26, 1948 Ponente: Ozaeta, Ponente: Ozaeta, J.
Facts: Zacarias Magoncia was arrested arrested for the crime of robbery by a band committed at the home of Hilario Enovejas in Pangasinan. The police chief ordered 4 policemen to go to Magoncia's home. These policemen, without a search warrant, entered Magoncia's house wh ere Magoncia's wife scolded them for searching their home while Magoncia was not around. The policemen found a paltik, a hand grenade, a box containing 42 rounds and some pi eces of cotton cloth owned by Hilario Enovejas. A complaint of robbery by a band and illegal possession of firearm were filed against the accused. For the complaint of illegal possession of firearms, Magoncia filed a moti on asking the trial court to order the return of the illegally seized effects and to order the Fiscal (Palacio) to desist from using such effects as evidence. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant now comes to the Supreme Court on certiorari and requests to revoke the order of the trial court judge and to order the fiscal to desist from using the seized items as evidence for the reason that they have been illegally seized.
Issue/Reasoning: Issue: Whether the defendant is entitled to the return of the items seized
- No - RA No. 4 prohibits the possession of firearm; the mere possession is a crime. Possession of contraband is punishable by law. The Constitution does not guarantee immunity to a smuggler. Return of the items to the defendant and to prevent them from being presented as evidence is to exonerate the crime punished by RA No. 4. - Possession of a thing susceptible to l egal appropriation and subject of free trade, like a clock, is different from a box of firearms fi rearms whose possession possession is prohibited. In the first case, it should invoke the guarantee against unreasonable unreasonable searches and seizure, but possession of a fi rearm without a license is flagrant violation of the law and the holder is subject to an arrest without a warrant and the item may be seized. - There is a wide distinction di stinction between the seizure of property lawfully within the possession of a person and the seizure of property held and used in violation of law. Thus contraband articles, and those things which under the law one has no right to possess, for the purpose of issue or disposition, are not embraced in the protection of the constitutional guaranty. Indeed, an individual in the possession of such goods is entitled to no protection whatsoever, for such goods are not subject to ownership, and may be forfeited or destroyed. They are, therefore, subject to search and seizure.
Dispositive: Petition dismissed
Perfecto (Concurring): The search of Magoncia's house without a search warrant is illegal. The policemen who conducted the search violated one of the fundamental guarantees of the Bill of Rights; they should be held accountable for their actions. However, the trial judge acted correctly in denying Magoncia's motion that the i tems be returned to him and not be used as evidence. To order the return of the prohibited weapons to Magoncia is to justify an illegality or criminal offense. The illegality of th e search is independent from the illegal possession of prohibited arms. The illegality of th e search did not make legal an illegal possession of firearms. When, in pursuing an illegal action or i n the commission of a criminal offense, the offending police officers should happen to di scover a criminal offense being committed by any persons, they are not precluded from performing their duties as pol ice officers for the apprehension of the guilty persons and the taking of the corpus delicti .
