FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 170672. August 14, 2009.]

JUDGE FELIMON ABELITA III , petitioner, vs . P/SUPT. GERMAN B.
DORIA and SPO3 CESAR RAMIREZ,
RAMIREZ respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO , J :
p

The Case
Before the Court is a petition for review 1 assailing the 10 July 2004 Decision 2 and 18
October 2004 Order 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217 (trial court), in
Civil Case No. Q-98-33442 for Damages.
The Antecedent Facts
Judge Felimon Abelita III (petitioner) led a complaint for Damages under Articles 32 (4)
and (9) of the Civil Code against P/Supt. German B. Doria (P/Supt. Doria) and SPO3 Cesar
Ramirez (SPO3 Ramirez). Petitioner alleged in his complaint that on 24 March 1996, at
around 12 noon, he and his wife were on their way to their house in Bagumbayan, Masbate,
Masbate when P/Supt. Doria and SPO3 Ramirez (respondents), accompanied by 10
unidenti ed police of cers, requested them to proceed to the Provincial PNP
Headquarters at Camp Boni Serrano, Masbate, Masbate. Petitioner was suspicious of the
request and told respondents that he would proceed to the PNP Headquarters after he
had brought his wife home. Petitioner alleged that when he parked his car in front of their
house, SPO3 Ramirez grabbed him, forcibly took the key to his Totoya * Lite Ace van,
barged into the vehicle, and conducted a search without a warrant. The search resulted to
the seizure of a licensed shotgun. Petitioner presented the shotgun's license to
respondents. Thereafter, SPO3 Ramirez continued his search and then produced a .45
caliber pistol which he allegedly found inside the vehicle. Respondents arrested petitioner
and detained him, without any appropriate charge, at the PNP special detention cell.
P/Supt. Doria alleged that his of ce received a telephone call from a relative of Rosa Sia
about a shooting incident in Barangay Nursery. He dispatched a team headed by SPO3
Ramirez to investigate the incident. SPO3 Ramirez later reported that a certain William Sia
was wounded while petitioner, who was implicated in the incident, and his wife just left the
place of the incident. P/Supt. Doria looked for petitioner and when he found him, he
informed him of the incident report. P/Supt. Doria requested petitioner to go with him to
the police headquarters as he was reported to be involved in the incident. Petitioner
agreed but suddenly sped up his vehicle and proceeded to his residence. P/Supt. Doria and
his companions chased petitioner. Upon reaching petitioner's residence, they caught up
with petitioner as he was about to run towards his house. The police of cers saw a gun in
the front seat of the vehicle beside the driver's seat as petitioner opened the door. They
also saw a shotgun at the back of the driver's seat. The police of cers con scated the
rearms and arrested petitioner. P/Supt. Doria alleged that his men also arrested other
persons who were identi ed to be with petitioner during the shooting incident. Petitioner
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

was charged with illegal possession of rearms and frustrated murder. An administrative
case was also filed against petitioner before this Court. 4
SCaDAE

The Decision of the Trial Court

In its 10 July 2004 Decision, the trial court dismissed petitioner's complaint.
The trial court found that petitioner was at the scene of the shooting incident in Barangay
Nursery. The trial court ruled that the police of cers who conducted the search were of the
belief, based on reasonable grounds, that petitioner was involved in the incident and that
the rearm used in the commission of the offense was in his possession. The trial court
ruled that petitioner's warrantless arrest and the warrantless seizure of the rearms were
valid and legal. The trial court gave more credence to the testimonies of respondents who
were presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with law. The trial court
rejected petitioner's claim of frame-up as weak and insuf cient to overthrow the positive
testimonies of the police of cers who conducted the arrest and the incidental search. The
trial court concluded that petitioner's claim for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code
is not warranted under the circumstances.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.
In its 18 October 2004 Order, the trial court denied the motion.
Hence, the petition before this Court.
The Issues
The issues in this case are the following:
1.Whether the warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure were
illegal under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure;
TEHIaD

2.Whether respondents are civilly liable for damages under Articles 32 (4)
and (9) of the Civil Code; and
3.Whether the ndings in the administrative case against petitioner are
conclusive in this case.
The Ruling of this Court
The petition has no merit.

Application of Section 5, Rule 113 of the

1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
Petitioner alleges that his arrest and the search were unlawful under Section 5, Rule 113 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Petitioner alleges that for the warrantless arrest to
be lawful, the arresting of cer must have personal knowledge of facts that the person to
be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
Petitioner alleges that the alleged shooting incident was just relayed to the arresting
officers, and thus they have no personal knowledge of facts as required by the Rules.
CSTcEI

We do not agree.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure states:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

Sec. 5.Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace of cer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a)When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b)When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c)When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving nal judgment or temporarily con ned
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.

For the warrantless arrest under this Rule to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the
offender has just committed an offense; and (2) the arresting peace of cer or private
person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it. 5
Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which means an actual
belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. 6 The grounds of suspicion are reasonable
when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting of cers, the suspicion that the person
to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e.,
supported by circumstances suf ciently strong in themselves to create the probable
cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. 7 A reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be
founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace of cers
making the arrest. 8
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure does not require the arresting
of cers to personally witness the commission of the offense with their own eyes. In this
case, P/Supt. Doria received a report about the alleged shooting incident. SPO3 Ramirez
investigated the report and learned from witnesses that petitioner was involved in the
incident. They were able to track down petitioner, but when invited to the police
headquarters to shed light on the incident, petitioner initially agreed then sped up his
vehicle, prompting the police authorities to give chase. Petitioner's act of trying to get
away, coupled with the incident report which they investigated, is enough to raise a
reasonable suspicion on the part of the police authorities as to the existence of probable
cause.

Plain View Doctrine

The seizure of the firearms was justified under the plain view doctrine.
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an of cer who has a right
to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as
evidence. 9 The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (1) the
law enforcement of cer in search of the evidence has a prior justi cation for an intrusion
or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (2) the discovery of the
evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (3) it is immediately apparent to the of cer that
the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to
seizure. 1 0
HTCDcS

In this case, the police authorities were in the area because that was where they caught up
with petitioner after the chase. They saw the rearms inside the vehicle when petitioner
opened the door. Since a shooting incident just took place and it was reported that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

petitioner was involved in the incident, it was apparent to the police of cers that the
firearms may be evidence of a crime. Hence, they were justified in seizing the firearms.

Civil Liability Under Article 32 of the Civil Code

Petitioner alleges that respondents are civilly liable under paragraphs (4) and (9) of Article
32 of the Civil Code.
Paragraphs (4) and (9) of Article 32 of the Civil Code respectively state:
Art. 32.Any public of cer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of
the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for
damages:
xxx xxx xxx
(4)Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
xxx xxx xxx
(9)The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures;
xxx xxx xxx

In this case, it was established that petitioner was lawfully arrested without a warrant and
that rearms were validly seized from his possession. The trial court found that petitioner
was charged with illegal possession of rearms and frustrated murder. We agree with the
trial court in rejecting petitioner's allegation that he was merely framed-up. We also agree
with the trial court that respondents were presumed to be performing their duties in
accordance with law. Hence, respondents should not be held civilly liable for their actions.
TECcHA

Res Judicata Does Not Apply

Respondents raise the defense of res judicata against petitioner's claim for damages.

Res judicata has two aspects: bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment
provided under Section 47 (b) and (c), Rule 39, respectively, of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure 1 1 which provide:
Sec. 47.Effect of judgments or nal orders. The effect of a judgment or nal
order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the
judgment or final order, may be as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(b)In other cases, the judgment or nal order is, with respect to the matter directly
adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto,
conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent
to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same
thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; and
(c)In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest,
that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or nal order
which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.

Bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment differ as follows:

There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the rst case where the
judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is
identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance, the
judgment in the rst case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action.
Otherwise put, the judgment or decree of the court of competent jurisdiction on
the merits concludes the litigation between the parties, as well as their privies, and
constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action
before the same or other tribunal.
cHSIAC

But where there is identity of parties in the rst and second cases, but no identity
of causes of action, the rst judgment is conclusive only as to those matters
actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely
involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as "conclusiveness of
judgment". Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated
or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court
in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the
judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their
privies whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two
actions is the same. 1 2

For res judicata to apply, the following requisites must be present:

(a)the former judgment or order must be final;
(b)it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after
a consideration of the evidence or stipulations submitted by the
parties at the trial of the case;
(c)it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties; and
(d)there must be, between the rst and second actions, identity of parties,
of subject matter, and of cause of action; this requisite is satis ed if
the two actions are substantially between the same parties. 1 3
While the present case and the administrative case are based on the same essential facts
and circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata will not apply. An administrative case deals
with the administrative liability which may be incurred by the respondent for the
commission of the acts complained of. 1 4 The case before us deals with the civil liability
for damages of the police authorities. There is no identity of causes of action in the cases.
While identity of causes of action is not required in the application of res judicata in the
concept of conclusiveness of judgment, 1 5 it is required that there must always be identity
of parties in the first and second cases.
DHAcET

There is no identity of parties between the present case and the administrative case. The
administrative case was led by Benjamin Sia Lao (Sia Lao) against petitioner. Sia Lao is
not a party to this case. Respondents in the present case were not parties to the
administrative case between Sia Lao and petitioner. In the present case, petitioner is the
complainant against respondents. Hence, while res judicata is not a defense to petitioner's
complaint for damages, respondents nevertheless cannot be held liable for damages as
discussed above.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

WHEREFORE , we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 10 July 2004 Decision and 18
October 2004 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217, in Civil Case
No. Q-98-33442.
SO ORDERED.
ORDERED

Puno, C.J., Corona, Leonardo-de Castro and Bersamin, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1.Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

2.Rollo, pp. 30-40. Penned by Judge Lydia Querubin Layosa.
3.Id. at 41.
4.Sia Lao v. Abelita III, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1359, 356 Phil. 575 (1998). The Court found petitioner
guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary and dismissed him from the
service with forfeiture of all bene ts and with prejudice to reemployment in any other
branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including government-owned and
controlled corporations.
5.People v. Cubcubin, Jr., 413 Phil. 249 (2001).
6.Id.
7.Umil v. Ramos, G.R. No. 81567, 3 October 1991, 202 SCRA 251; People v. Lozada, 454 Phil.
241 (2003).
8.Id.
9.Abenes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156320, 14 February 2007, 515 SCRA 690.
10.Id.
11.Agustin v. Sps. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 168139, 20 January 2009.
12.Id.
13.Estate of the Late Encarnacion Vda. de Panlilio v. Dizon, G.R. No. 148777, 18 October 2007,
536 SCRA 565.
14.See Velasquez v. Hernandez, 480 Phil. 844 (2004).
15.See Layos v. Fil-Estate Gold and Development, Inc., G.R. No. 150470, 6 August 2008, 561
SCRA 75, citing Oropeza Marketing Corp. v. Allied Banking Corp., 441 Phil. 551 (2002).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com