VALEROSO vs PP QUICK FACTS: Gun serial no.

: 5231511 Ammunitions: 5 live ammunitions Gun was verfied at: Firearms and Explosives Division at Camp Crame Date charged: July 10, 1996 Old penalty: The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua (PD 1866) FACTS: - SP02 Disuanco upon a dispatch order, conducted a necessary surveillance on the petitioner Sr. Insp. Jerry Valeroso who was issued a warrant of arrest in a case for kidnapping with ransom. - They finally were able to arrest him while he was about to board a tricycle. - Upon searching him, they found a Charter Arms tucked in his waist. - Upon verification of the subject firearm, it was revealed to the petitioner but rather to a certain Raul Salvatierra. - Petitioner was the charged w/ illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under PD 1866 - During the trial, Petitioner recounted that he was asleep in the boarding house of his children when 4 heavily armed mean bolted the room, and pulled him outside. They seached and ransacked the room while SP02 Disuanco stood outside with him. - Moments later an operative came out of the room and exclaimed "Hoy, may nakuha akong baril sa loob!" - Petitioner contends that search done in the house was illegal and the gun seized was duly licensed and covered by necessarry permits, however, he was unable to present any documentations relative to the firearm bec. it was consficated by the police. He further lamented that while in incarceration he was not allowed to engage in the service of a counsel. - SPO3 Timbol, Jr. of the Narcotics Command testified that he issued to petitioner a Memorandum Receipt covering the subject firearm and its ammunition, upon the verbal instruction of Col. Angelito Moreno - Adrian Yuson, an occupant of the room adjacent to where petitioner was arrested, testified that 2 policemen suddenly entered his room as he was preparing for school.They grabbed his shoulder and led him out.During all those times, a gun was poked at him.He was asked where petitioner was staying. RTC found petitioner guilty as charged and sentenced him to 4 yrs 2mos 1d to 6 years/Fine P15,000 CA affirmed with modification the RTC decision: modified the penalty imposed to 4 yrs 2mos to 6 years ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty despite the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt? HELD: - In illegal possesion of firearms, the prosecution has the burden of proving the elements of: (1) the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition, and (2) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it. The first element was established through the testimony of SPO2 Disuanco, Yuson and the petitioner himself. Likewise, petitioners lack of authority to possess the firearm was established by Deriquito who was able to prove that the firearm was not issued to the petitioner. A representative or certification from the PNP (FEO) that the person is not a licensee would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of possession of illegal firearms. Memorandum Receipt was issued based on the verbal instruction on a superior Col. Moreno. It's issuance lacked the necessary bureaucratic constraints. It was issued to petitioner under questionable circumstances. Failure to offer an unlicensed firearm as evidence is not fatal provided there is competent testimony as to its existence. R.A. No. 8294 amended P.D. No. 1866 on July 6, 1997, during the pendency of the case with the trial court. A new law has a prospective, not retroactive, effect. However, penal laws that favor a guilty person, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be given retroactive effect. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, prision correccional maximum which ranges from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, is the prescribed penalty and will form the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence. The minimum term shall be one degree lower, which is prision correccional in its medium period (two [2] years, four [4] months and one [1] day to four [4] years and two [2] months). Hence, the penalty imposed by the CA is correct. The penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum term, to six (6) years of prision correccional maximum, as maximum term. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 4, 2004 is AFFIRMED in full.

SAYCO vs PEOPLE QUICK FACTS: Firearm: 9MM marked "SIGSAUER P229" FACTS: Petitioner was charged before the Municipal Trial Court in Bais City with illegal possession of firearms. Petitioner was arrested when P03 Labe upon a tip from a telephone caller unidentified person was inside Abueva's Repair Shop located at Tavera Street, tucking a handgun on his waist. They immediately went to the aforementioned place, and upon their arrival thereat, they saw one unidentified person tucking a handgun on his right side waistline. They approached the unidentified person and asked him if he had a license to possess said firearm, but the answer was in the negative. At this juncture, they immediately effected the arrest, and confiscated from his possession and custody a Caliber 9MM marked "SIGSAUER P299" with 14 live ammunitions with Serial No. AE 25171. For his defense, petitioner does not deny that he was in possession of the subject firearm and ammunitions when he was apprehended in Bais City, but he insists that he had the requisite permits to carry the same. He was able to present a Memorandum Receipt which stated that he was a Confidential Agent of the AFP, and a Mission Order issued to his name which authorizes him to carry the said firearm. The RTC and MTCC gave no significance to the foregoing documents. The MTCC held that the Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order do not constitute the license required by law because "they were not issued by the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosives Unit, but by the Commanding Officer of the Philippine Army who is not authorized by law to issue licenses to civilians to possess firearms and ammunitions." The RTC added that, as held in Pastrano v. Court of Appeals and Belga v. Buban, said documents cannot take the place of the requisite license. The CA wholly concurred with both courts. Petitioner insists that he is a confidential agent of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and it was in that capacity that he received the subject firearm and ammunitions from the AFP. As said firearm and ammunitions are government property duly licensed to the Intelligence Security Group (ISG) of the AFP, the same could not be licensed under his name; instead, what he obtained were a Memorandum Receipt and a Mission Order whereby ISG entrusted to him the subject firearm and ammunitions and authorized him to carry the same around Bacolod City. Petitioner further argues that he merely acted in good faith when he relied on the Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order for authority to carry said firearm and ammunitions; thus, it would be a grave injustice if he were to be punished for the deficiency of said documents. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner violated of P.D. 1866, as amended by RA 8294, despite the latter's proof of authority to possess the subject firearm? HELD: As correctly cited by the Solicitor General, it is a settled jurisprudence that a memorandum receipt and mission order cannot take the place of a duly issued firearms license, and an accused who relies on said documents cannot invoke good faith as a defense against a prosecution for illegal possession of firearms, as this is a malum prohibitum. Petitioner interposed no new argument that would convince this Court to abandon a deep-rooted jurisprudence. the rules governing memorandum receipts and mission orders covering the issuance to and the possession and/or carrying of government-owned firearms by special or confidential civilian agents may be synthesized as follows: First, special or confidential civilian agents who are not included in the regular plantilla of any government agency involved in law enforcement or receiving regular compensation for services rendered are not exempt from the requirements under P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, of a regular license to possess firearms and a permit to carry the same outside of residence; Second, said special or confidential civilian agents are not qualified to receive, obtain and possess government-owned firearms. Their ineligibility will not be cured by the issuance of a memorandum receipt for equipment covering said government-owned firearms. Neither will they qualify for exemption from the requirements of a regular firearms license and a permit to carry firearms by the mere issuance to them of a government-owned firearms covered by a memorandum receipt; and Third, said special or confidential civilian agents do not qualify for mission orders to carry firearms (whether private-owned or government-owned) outside of their residence.

The foregoing rules do not apply to special or confidential civilian agents in possession of or bearing private-owned firearms that are duly licensed and covered by permits to carry the same outside of residence. Set against the foregoing rules, it is clear that petitioner is not authorized to possess and carry the subject firearm and ammunition, notwithstanding the memorandum receipt and mission order which were illegally issued to him. Petitioner is a planter 38 who was recruited to assist in the counter-insurgency campaign of the AFP. 39 However, as he offered no evidence that he is in the regular plantilla of the AFP or that he is receiving regular compensation from said agency, he cannot be considered a regular civilian agent but a mere confidential civilian agent as defined under Section 6 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. No. 1866. As such, he was not authorized to receive the subject government-owned firearm and ammunitions. The memorandum receipt he signed to account for said government properties did not legitimize his possession thereof. Petition is DENIED. CELINO vs CA FACTS: Two separate informations were filed before the RTC charging petitioner with violation of Section 2 COMELEC Resolution No. 6446 (gun ban) and Section 1, Paragraph 2 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8294 (illegal possession of firearm) One the first information stated that on or about the 12th day of May, petitioner was seen carrying an armalite rifle colt M16 with two (2) long magazines each loaded with thirty (30) live ammunitions of the same caliber during the election period, without first having obtained the proper authority in writing from the Commission on Elections On the second information stated that on or about the 12th day of May, petitioner was seen carrying an armalite rifle colt M16 with two (2) long magazines each loaded with thirty (30) live ammunitions of the same caliber during the election period, without first having obtained the proper license or necessary permit to possess the said firearm. Upon arraignment, petitioner filed a motion to quahs contending that he cannot be prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms if he was also charged of having committed another crime of violating the Comelec gun ban under the same set of facts. RTC denied Motion to Quash on the ground that "the other offense charged is not one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294. CA affirmed RTC's ruling. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner can be prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms while also being charged of having committed another crime under the same facts? HELD: The accused can be convicted of illegal possession of firearms, provided no other crime was committed by the person arrested. The word "committed" taken in its ordinary sense, and in light of the Constitutional presumption of innocence, necessarily implies a prior determination of guilt by final conviction resulting from successful prosecution or voluntary admission. Petitioner's reliance on Agote, Ladjaalam, Evangelista, Garcia, Pangilinan, Almeida, and Bernal is, therefore, misplaced. In each one of these cases, the accused were exonerated of illegal possession of firearms because of their commission, as shown by their conviction, of some other crime. In the present case, however, petitioner has only been accused of committing a violation of the COMELEC gun ban. As accusation is not synonymous with guilt, there is yet no showing that petitioner did in fact commit the other crime charged. Consequently, the proviso does not yet apply. In sum, when the other offense involved is one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, any information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed because the illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense, either considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat. Conversely, when the other offense involved is not one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted. Petition is DISMISSED.

PEOPLE vs QUIJADA FACTS: Petitioner is convicted with murder under RPC and illegal possession of firearm under PD1866 and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for the first crime and an ISL of 17yrs 4mos 1 to 20yrs 1day for the second crime. Dec 25, 1992 Fistfight between the deceased Iroy and appellant Daniel Quijada Dec 30, 1995 Another Disco. Appellant came from behind deceased and fired his revolver hitting the latter. The firearm (handgun) used by the appellant in shooting Diosdado Iroy was not licensed. Per certifications issued on 26 April 1993, the appellant was not a duly licensed firearm holder as verified from a consolidated list of licensed firearm holders in the province 16 and was not authorized to carry a firearm outside his residence. The evidence for the prosecution further established with moral certainty that the appellant had no license to possess or carry a firearm. The firearm then that he used in shooting Diosdado Iroy was unlicensed. He, therefore, committed the crime of aggravated illegal possession of firearm under the second paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 ISSUE: Whether or not defendant HELD: In light of the doctrine enunciated in People vs. Tac-an, and reiterated in People vs. Tiozon, People vs. Caling, People vs. Jumamoy, People vs. Deunida, People vs. Tiongco, People vs. Fernandez, and People vs. Somooc, 42 that one who kills another with the use of an unlicensed firearm commits two separate offenses of (1) either homicide or murder under the Revised Penal Code, and (2) aggravated illegal possession of firearm under the second paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, we sustain the decision of the trial court finding the appellant guilty of two separate offenses of murder in Criminal Case No. 8178 and of aggravated illegal possession of firearm in Criminal Case No. 8179. Although Tac-an and Tiozon relate more to the issue of whether there is a violation of the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy if an accused is prosecuted for homicide or murder and for aggravated illegal possession of firearm, they at the same time laid down the rule that these are separate offenses, with the first punished under the Revised Penal Code and the second under a special law; hence, the constitutional bar against double jeopardy will not apply. In short, there is nothing in P.D. No. 1866 that manifests, even vaguely, a legislative intent to decriminalize homicide or murder if either crime is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, or to convert the offense of illegal possession of firearm as a qualifying circumstance if the firearm so illegally possessed is used in the commission of homicide or murder. To charge the lawmaker with that intent is to impute an absurdity that would defeat the clear intent to preserve the law on homicide and murder and impose a higher penalty for illegal possession of firearm if such firearm is used in the commission of homicide or murder. The penalty which the trial court imposed in Criminal Case No. 8179 for illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form must, however, be modified. The penalty prescribed by P.D. No. 1866 is death. Since Section 19(1), Article III of the Constitution prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty next lower in degree, reclusion perpetua, must be imposed. WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED, and the challenged decision of 30 September 1993 of Branch 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Bohol finding accused-appellant DANIEL QUIJADA y CIRCULADO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder in Criminal Case No. 8178 and of illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form in Criminal Case No. 8179 is AFFIRMED. The penalty imposed in the first case, as amended by the Order of 29 October 1993, is sustained; however, the penalty imposed in the second case is changed to Reclusion Perpetua from the indeterminate penalty ranging from Seventeen (17) years, Four (4) months, and One (1) day, as minimum, to Twenty (20) years and One (1) day, as maximum. PEOPLE vs GO FACTS: Accused while found having a gun (9mm Walther P88, Serial Number 006784) tucked to this waist while police were conducting am operation inside a disco bar, whereby they search for illegally possessed firearms. When asked for a license of the gun, accused was not able to produce any, instead handing out a drivers license of a certain Tan Antonio Lerios.

When police accompanied the accused to his car they also saw drug paraphernelias. The accused opened a clutch which had which contained shiny white substance wrapped in cellophane which later on turned out to be shabu. Consequently, two Informations were filed against accused. One for violating RA 6452 (DDA) and illegal possession of firearm (PD1866) Lower court convicted the accused. CA affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties. ISSUE: Whether or not accused was validly arrested without any warrant of arrest having been issued prior thereto? HELD: The Rules of Court and jurisprudence recognize exceptional cases where an arrest may be effected without a warrant. Among these are when, in the presence of a peace officer, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; or when an offense has in fact just been committed, and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. In the cases at bar, the police saw the gun tucked in appellant's waist when he stood up. The gun was plainly visible. No search was conducted as none was necessary. Accused-appellant could not show any license for the firearm, whether at the time of his arrest or thereafter. Thus, he was in effect committing a crime in the presence of the police officers. No warrant of arrest was necessary in such a situation, it being one of the recognized exceptions under the Rules. Accused was NEVER able to present a firearm license during the operation, and at any time during the trial. And on appeal, he could only submit for the first time and for unknown reasons an alleged photocopy of a purported license. The only plausible conclusion that can be drawn is that there was no such license in the first place. Hence, his guilt of illegal possession of firearm was duly established. Accused-appellant's guilt for illegal possession of shabu has likewise been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The white crystalline substance found in his possession, upon laboratory examination, were positively identified as methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug. The crime of illegal possession of firearm, committed in 1992, regardless of whether the firearm is low powered or high powered, was punished with the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, as provided in P.D. 1866. However, under R.A. No. 8294, which took effect on July 6, 1997, 31 the penalty was lowered to prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of P30,000.00, if the firearm 32 is classified as low powered. In this case, the unlicensed firearm found in appellant's possession was a 9mm Walther pistol, which under the amendatory law, is considered as low powered. Inasmuch as the new law imposes a reduced penalty and is, thus, more favorable to accused-appellant, the same may be given retroactive effect. 33 Therefore, accused-appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum, and a fine of P30,000.00. GONZALEZ vs CA SYNOPSIS: Two separate informations were filed against petitioner Gonzales involving the crimes of attempted homicide and violation of P.D. No. 1866. A plea of not guilty having been entered; trial ensued. After trial, the court acquitted the petitioner of attempted homicide but found him guilty of illegal possession of firearm. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the petitioner asserted that the trial court erred in not giving credence to the defense's narration of the incident and his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner's defense is that he inadvertently picked up the gun which was accidentally dropped by an unidentified person who was being chased by the Verdes. Thus, he cannot be convicted for illegal possession of firearm. We affirm the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Petitioner's narration is not in conformity with human experience and reaction. In cases involving illegal possession of firearm, there are two requisites: a) the existence of the subject firearm and b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license or permit

to possess. The first requisite is beyond dispute as the subject firearm was recovered, identified and offered in evidence during trial. With respect to the second requisite, the same was undisputably proven by the prosecution. There is no doubt that the petitioner is indeed guilty of having intentionally possessed an unlicensed firearm. The testimony of the petitioner that he came into possession of the firearm only after a scuffle, is a lame defense which cannot overcome the solid evidence presented by the prosecution proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As regards the penalty, we reduce the same in view of the passage of R.A. No. 8294 wherein the penalty for simple illegal possession of firearms has been lowered. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the principal penalty for simple illegal possession of firearm is four years and two months as minimum, to six years, as maximum and a fine of P150,000.00.