BY ASHZEL HACHERO
DUE to lapses committed by arresting police officers, a trade union activist has been cleared by the Court of Appeals of charges of illegal possession firearms and ammunition.
In a decision promulgated on September 15, the appellate court’s Tenth Division granted the appeal of Marklen Maojo Maga, resulting in the reversal of the May 2019 ruling of Branch 76 of San Mateo Regional Trial Court (RTC) and a January 2020 resolution junking his motion for reconsideration.
The appellate court also ordered the Bureau of Corrections and the superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison to immediately release Maga unless he is being held for other lawful causes.
The ruling said the prosecution “failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt” Maga’s guilt.
The San Mateo RTC earlier sentenced Maga him to eight to 14 years imprisonment.
Court records showed that Maga, a member of the Kilusang Mayo Uno, was arrested by the police in February 2018 while watching a basketball game in Greenland Newtown Subdivision in San Mateo, Rizal for a murder case pending before Branch 34 of the Cabadbaran City RTC in Agusan del Norte.
The police officers said Maga tried to escape. A backpack recovered in his possession allegedly contained a caliber 45 pistol loaded with live ammunition.
Maga said the gun and ammunition were planted by the police officers. He also said the backpack was not recovered from because he hanged it on his bike, which was parked beside the basketball court.
Prosecution witnesses, who include arresting police officers, have told the court Maga was apprehended at the basketball court while police searched his backpack.
The appellate court said it found Maga’s arguments “meritorious.”
“In the present case, it is undisputed that the warrantless search was conducted in a place other than the place of arrest. The prosecution witnesses were clear that Maga was arrested at the basketball court, while the search of Maga’s backpack took place after they had all boarded their private vehicle,” said the ruling penned by Associate Justice Jaime Fortunato Caringal.
“A warrantless search cannot be made in a place other than the place of arrest. In effect, the place of arrest should be in close temporal proximity to where the police conducted the search,” the ruling, which was concurred in by Associate Justices Louis Acosta and Ramon Cruz, added.
The appellate court explained that the purpose of allowing the conduct of a warrantless search and seizure incidental to a lawful arrest is to protect the police officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach.
“Thus, the prosecution must establish these two circumstances in justifying the warrantless search of the person arrested,” the CA said.
The appellate court faulted the police officers, saying that instead of immediately searching the backpack at the place of Maga’s arrest, they opted to search the backpack when they were already on board their vehicle and without any exigent circumstance to justify the warrantless search of the backpack.
“The arresting officers did not testify that they searched the bag out of concern for the safety of themselves. In addition, they did not claim that they searched the bag to prevent accused-appellant from destroying any evidence, and in any event, the facts do not support such a claim,” the CA said. “In sum, the search of accused-appellant’s backpack inside the vehicle is unlawful and unreasonable,” it added.
With this, the appellate court stressed that the firearm and live ammunition recovered constitute “inadmissible evidence” pursuant to the exclusionary clause of the Constitution for being the proverbial “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
“By negating the admissibility in evidence of items seized in illegal search and seizures, the Constitution declines to validate the law enforcers’ illicit conduct. Given that said illegal firearm and ammunition are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, accused-appellant Maga must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability,” the CA added.
Different courts have been junking various illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives charges against labor and human rights activists due to irregularities in the procurement and service of search and arrest warrants.
Activists have even asked the Supreme Court to act against what they called courts acting as “warrant factories” for their propensity to issue search warrants that are later invalidated.
The latest is the CA ruling invalidating the search warrant used by the police in arresting Reina Mae Nasino and two other activists in November 2019.
Nasino’s case attracted both local and international reaction and sympathy after her three-month-old baby, who was born in detention at the Manila City Jail, died after their separation.
