Case Digest: Abelita vs Doria

Judge Felimon Abelita III vs P/Supt German Doria & SPO3 Cesar Ramirez

GR No. 170627                                                                                     August 14, 2009

Facts:

Petitioner (Judge Abelita) filed a complaint for damages under Art. 32(4) and (9) of the Civil Code against Respondents (Doria and Ramirez). Petitioner alleged that he and his wife was on their home when the respondents accompanied by 10 unidentified police officers,requested them to proceed to the PNP headquarters. Petitioner alleged that he would proceed to to the PNP HQ after he had brought his wife home. Petitoner alleged  that when she parked his car in front of their house, SPO3 Ramirez grabbed him and took his car keys, bared into the vehicle and conducted as search without a warrant. The search resulted to the seizure of a licensed shotgun and a unlicensed .45 caliber pistol allegedly found inside the vehicle.

However, the respondent has a different version of the case. Doria alleged that they received a telephone call from a relative of Rosa Sia about a shooting incident. He dispatched a team headed by Ramirez to investigate the incident. Ramirez reported that a certain William Sia is wounded while Petitioner and his wife just left the place of the incident. Doria looked for the petitioner and when he found him, he informed him about the incident, he requested Petitioner to go with him in the PNP HQ but the petitioner suddenly sped up his vehicle and proceeded to his residence, they caught up with petitioner as he was about to run towards his house. The police offices saw a gun in the form seat and a shotgun at the back. They confiscated the firearms and charged Petitioner for illegal possession of firearms and frustrated murder and an administrative case.

Issue:

Whether or not the arrest and seizure was valid.

Whether or not the Respondents are liable for damages.

Whether the findings in the administrative case against petitioner is conclusive in this case.

Ruling:

Yes, the seizure was valid under plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The requisites of plain view are:

1. the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
2. the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
3. it is immediately apparent to the police officers that the firearm may be an evidence of a crime.

Hence, they were justified in seizing the firearms.

No, the court did not agree that petitioner was framed-up and that the respondents were presumed to be performing their duties in accordance with law. They should not be held liable for damages.

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. The requisites of res judicata are:

1. the former judgment must be final;
2. it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after a consideration of the evidence or stipulation submitted by the parties at the trial of the case;
3. it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
4. there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of the parties, of subject matter, and cause of action; this requisite is satisfied f the two actions are substantially between the same parties.

A administrative case deals with the administrative liability which may be incurred by the respondent for the commission of the acts complained of. This case deals with the civil liability for damages of the police officers. 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, it is required that there must always be identity of parties in the first and second cases. There is no identity of parties since the administrative case was filed by Bejamin Sia Lao against petitioner and Benjamin is not a party to this case.