SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR RA 10591

COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT

People of the Philippines vs. Rolando De Gracia

G.R. Nos. 102009-10 July 6, 1994

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Rolando de Gracia was convicted with the crime of illegal possession of
ammunition and explosives in the furtherance of rebellion, penalized under Section 1, paragraph 3, of
Presidential Decree No. 1866 by the Regional Trial Court.

When police officers entered the Eurocar building the first person seen was appellant De Gracia
inside the office of a certain Col. Matillano, holding a dynamite. De Gracia was the only person then
present through a door and present inside the room. Because of the raid, the team arrested appellant.

The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of
firearms in furtherance of rebellion and sentenced him to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua. That
judgment of conviction is now challenged before us in this appeal.

Appellant principally contends that he cannot be held guilty of illegal possession of firearms
because he did not have either physical or constructive possession thereof considering that he had no
intent to possess the same; he is neither the owner nor a tenant of the building where the ammunition
and explosives were found; he was merely employed by Col. Matillano as an errand boy; he was guarding
the explosives for and in behalf of Col. Matillano; and he did not have actual possession of the explosives.
He claims that intent to possess, which is necessary before one can be convicted under Presidential Decree
No. 1866, was not present in the case at bar.

ISSUE:

Whether or not intent to possess is an essential element of the offense punishable under
Presidential Decree No. 1866?

RULING:

The rule is that ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession which includes not only actual physical
possession but also constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to one's control and
management.

But is the mere fact of physical or constructive possession sufficient to convict a person for
unlawful possession of firearms or must there be an intent to possess to constitute a violation of the law?

A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an
act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. In intent to commit the crime, there must
be criminal intent; in intent to perpetrate the act, it is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously.

GROUP 1 REPORTER – ATOC, DAMIE JANE A.

 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR RA 10591
COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT

In the present case, a distinction should be made between criminal intent and intent to possess.
While mere possession, without criminal intent, is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a
firearm, it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the part of the
accused. Criminal intent here refers to the intention of the accused to commit an offense with the use of
an unlicensed firearm. This is not important in convicting a person under Presidential Decree No. 1866.
Hence, in order that one may be found guilty of a violation of the decree, it is sufficient that the accused
had no authority or licensed to possess a firearm, and that he intended to possess the same, even if such
possession was in good faith and without criminal intent.

There is no doubt in our minds that appellant De Gracia is indeed guilty of having intentionally
possessed several firearms, explosives and ammunition without the requisite license or authority
therefor.

ARNULFO a.k.a. ARNOLD JACABAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015

FACTS:

Petitioner was convicted guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions under PD No.
1866, as amended by Republic Act (RA) 8294.

Police Senior Inspector Ipil H. Dueñas (P/SInsp. Dueñas) of the now defunct Presidential Anti-
Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) filed an Application for Search Warrant before Branch 22 of the
RTC, Cebu City, to search the premises of Jacaban’s Residence. Upon arrival to appellant's house, SPO2
Abellana served the search warrant to appellant who was just inside the house together with his wife and
other ladies. Upon informing appellant of the search warrant, he became angry and denied having
committed any illegal activity. P/SInsp. Dueñas assured appellant that he had nothing to worry about if
they would not find anything.

The team proceeded to search the living room in the presence of three tanods and the appellant
himself. The team continued to search the room where SPO2 Abellana found a calibre .45 placed in the
ceiling. Appellant, who was at the living room that time, rushed to the room and grappled with SPO2
Abellana but failed to get hold of the gun. After an exhaustive search was done, other firearms and
ammunitions were recovered from the searched premises.

The RTC rendered its Decision convicting petitioner of the crime charged. In so ruling, the RTC
found that the prosecution had established all the elements of the crime charged. Petitioner was in
possession of the firearm, ammunitions and other items with intent to possess the same as they were
found inside his house; and he had no license or permit to possess the same from any competent
authority. The CA issued its assailed Decision which affirmed in toto the RTC decision.

ISSUE:

GROUP 1 REPORTER – ATOC, DAMIE JANE A.

 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR RA 10591
COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT

Whether or not the RTC decision finding him guilty of the crime charged is premised on its
erroneous conclusion that he is the owner the house where the unlicensed firearms and ammunitions
were found.

RULING:

The findings of facts by a trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the
Supreme Court. This rule, however, is not without exceptions. However, petitioner failed to show that his
case falls under any of the exceptions.

Section 1 of PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, provides:

Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Firearms

or Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or
Ammunition. — . . .

The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000.00) shall be imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered firearm which includes
those with bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .44,
.45 and also lesser calibered firearms but considered powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22
center-fire magnum and other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of two
or three: Provided, however,

That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.

The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions are: (1) the existence of subject firearm; and, (2) the fact that the accused who possessed
or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it. The unvarying rule is that ownership
is not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is
merely possession, which includes not only actual physical possession, but also constructive possession
or the subjection of the thing to one's control and management.

Once the prosecution evidence indubitably points to possession without the requisite authority
or license, coupled with animus possidendi or intent to possess on the part of the accused, conviction for
violation of the said law must follow.

Here, the prosecution had proved the essential elements of the crime charged under PD 1866 as
amended by RA 8294.

PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, is a malum prohibitum and that the Revised Penal Code is
generally not applicable, it has been held that when a special law, which is a malum prohibitum, adopts
the nomenclature of the penalties in the Revised Penal Code, the latter law shall apply. While in 2013, RA
10951 entitled "An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunitions and Providing
Penalties for Violation Thereof" took effect, the same finds no application in this case as the law provides
for stiffer penalties which is not at all favorable to the accused.

GROUP 1 REPORTER – ATOC, DAMIE JANE A.

 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR RA 10591
COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT

People of the Philippines vs. Ronald a.k.a "Ronald" Garcia y Flores, * Rodante Rogel y Rosales, Rotchel
Lariba y Demicillo, and Gerry B. Valler

G.R. Nos. 133489 & 143970. January 15, 2002

FACTS:

Accused-appellants Ronald a.k.a Roland Garcia y Flores, Rodante Rogel y Rosales, Rotchel Lariba
y Demicillo and Gerry B. Valler, along with a certain Jimmy Muit, were charged with and convicted of
kidnapping for ransom of the victim Atty. Romualdo Tioleco and were sentenced each to death.

The penalty of death was imposed upon accused-appellants after the trial court found them guilty
of the crime of kidnapping with ransom and serious illegal detention committed against Atty. Romualdo
Tioleco. Accused-appellants Rotchel Lariba and Rodante Rogel were also convicted of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition in connection with the same incident and each was sentenced to an
indeterminate prison term.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellants can be held guilty of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition while convicted with the crime of kidnapping with ransom.

RULING:

The decision of the trial court was modified. Appellants Gerry Valler and Ronald Garcia were
declared guilty as principals of kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention and were each
sentenced to death, while appellants Rodante Rogel and Rotchel Lariba were found guilty as accomplices
of the same crime and were each sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

In the light of the enactment of RA 8294 if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any
crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the "other crime"
is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a
separate offense. Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused. Verily, no other
interpretation is justified, for the language of the new law demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the
accused. Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of two separate offenses of illegal possession of
firearms and kidnapping for ransom.

The decision convicting them of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition was reversed and set aside
ruling that both accused-appellants cannot be held liable of the said crime there being another crime —
kidnapping for ransom — which they were perpetrating at the same time.

GROUP 1 REPORTER – ATOC, DAMIE JANE A.

 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR RA 10591
COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT

People of the Philippines vs. Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil alias “Warpan”

G.R. Nos. 136149-51. September 19, 2000

FACTS:

Appellant Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil, also known as "Warpan," was found guilty of three out of
four charges lodged against him. He was found guilty of the crimes of (1) Violation of Section 15-A, Article
III, of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended; (2) Illegal
Possession of Firearm and Ammunition penalized under Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by
Republic Act No. 8294; (3) the crime of Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide.

During the service of search warrant intended to take place at the house of the appellant, he
deliberately fired shots against the police officers. After the commotion, the appellant was successfully
arrested.

As a consequence of the legal arrest, the police officers were able to take different firearms. The
trial court observed that these items were in "plain view" of the pursuing police officers. Moreover, it
added that these same items were "evidence [of] the commission of a crime and/or contraband and
therefore, subject to seizure" since appellant "had not applied for a license to possess firearm and had
not been given authority to carry firearm outside his residence."

The trial court convicted appellant of three crimes: (1) maintenance of a drug den, (2) direct
assault with attempted homicide, and (3) illegal possession of firearms.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellant can be held guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition
while convicted with the crime of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court and found appellant
guilty only of direct assault and multiple attempted homicide and maintaining a drug den. The Court ruled
that that the trial court erred in convicting appellant of illegal possession of firearms.

According to the Court, a simple reading of Section 1 of Republic Act 8294 shows that if an
unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple
illegal possession of firearms. Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in
this case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms. The Court also ruled that
when the crime was committed on September 24, 1997, the original language of PD 1866 had already
been expressly superseded by RA 8294 which took effect on July 6, 1997. In other words, no longer in
existence was the earlier provision of PD 1866, which justified a conviction for illegal possession of
firearms separate from any other crime. It was replaced by RA 8294 which, among other amendments to
PD 1866, contained the specific proviso that "no other crime was committed."

GROUP 1 REPORTER – ATOC, DAMIE JANE A.

 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR RA 10591
COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT
Essential elements in the prosecution for the
crime of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions:
1.) The existence of subject firearm
2.) The accused who possessed or
owned the same does not have the
corresponding license for it
UNLAWFUL ACQUISITION OR POSSESSION OF
FIREARMS
1.) Acquisition or possession of a small
arms
2.) Acquisition or possession of 3 or
more small arms or Class A light
weapons
3.) Acquisition or possession of a Class
A light weapon
4.) Acquisition or possession of a Class
B light weapon
Penalty is one degree higher if the firearm is:
1.) Loaded with ammunition or inserted
with a loaded magazine
2.) Fitted or mounted with laser or any
gadget used to guide the shooter to hit
the target such as thermal weapon sight
and the like
3.) Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes,
firearm muffler or silencer
4.) Accompanied with an extra barrel
5.) Converted to be capable of firing full
automatic bursts
USE OF A LOOSE FIREARM IN THE COMMISSION
OF A CRIME
1.) Aggravating
a. If inherent in the commission of
a crime
GROUP 1 REPORTER – ATOC, DAMIE JANE A.
b. If penalty for crime is lower than
the penalty for illegal possession
– penalty for illegal possession is
imposed
c. If penalty for crime is equal doe
penalty of illegal possession –
Prison mayor minimum, in
addition to the penalty for the
crime committed
2.) Absorbed
a. In crimes of rebellion,
insurrection or attempted coup
d’etat
3.) Two separate and distinct offenses
a. If crime is committed without
the use of the loose firearm
OTHER CRIMINAL OFFENSES
1.) Section 31 - Any person licensed to own
a firearm but who shall carry the
registered firearm outside his residence
without any legal authority
2.) Section 32 – Unlawful manufacture,
importation, sale or disposition of
firearms or ammunition or parts thereof,
machinery, tool or instrument used or
intended to be used in the manufacture
of firearms, ammunition or parts
thereof.
3.) Section 33 – Arms smuggling
4.) Section 34 – Any person who shall
temper, alter or replace without
authority the barrel, frame, receiver,
cylinder, including the name of the
maker, serial number or model of any
firearm
USE OF IMITATION FIREARM
The use of imitation firearm in the commission
of a crime shall be considered a real firearm.
 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR RA 10591
COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT

Note: Injuries caused on the occasion of the

conduct of competition, sports, games, or any
recreation involving imitation fireable shall NOT
be punished under this act.

GROUP 1 REPORTER – ATOC, DAMIE JANE A.