G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015 - ARNULFO A.K.A.

ARNOLD JACABAN,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

THIRD DIVISION

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

ARNULFO A.K.A. ARNOLD JACABAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the Decision1 dated July
30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City, which affirmed in toto the
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Cebu City, finding
petitioner guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions under
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act (RA) 8294.

An Information was filed with the RTC, Branch 13, Cebu City2 charging
petitioner with violation of PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294, to wit:
That on or about the 16th day of July 1999, at about 12:45 A.M., in the City
of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, with deliberate intent, did then and there have in his
possession and control the following articles, to wit:
1. One (1) cal. 45 pistol “Llama Gabilondo” with SN515090

2. One (1) stainless magazine for caliber 45 pistol loaded with seven (7)
rounds of Live ammunitions for caliber .45

3. Three (3) short magazines for caliber 5.56 mm containing fifty-nine

rounds of live ammos

4. Two (2) long magazines for caliber 5.56 mm containing fifty-five (55)
rounds of live ammos

5. One (1) Bandoler for caliber 5.56 mm

6. One (1) bullet [links] for caliber 7.62 mm with twenty-eight (28) rounds
of live ammos for caliber 7.62 mm

7. One (1) bullet clips for caliber 30 M1 Garrand Rifle containing eight (8)
rounds of live ammos

8. One (1) plastic sachet containing five (5) rounds of live ammos for caliber
5.56 mm
9. Six (6) rounds live ammos for caliber 7.62 mm

10. One (1) pair Upper Handguard for caliber 5.56 mm M16 rifle

11. One (1) damage carrying handle for caliber 5.56 rifle.
without first securing the necessary license/permit issued therefor from any
competent authority.

Contrary to law.3
On July 19, 1999, petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the
charge.4

Trial on the merits ensued.

The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

Evidence for the prosecution established that on July 15, 1999, 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
[appellant's] residence at J. Labra St., Guadalupe, Cebu City and seize the
following items.
One (1) 7.62 cal M-14 Rifle;
Two (2) 5.56 mm M16 Armalite Rifle;
One (1) 12 gauge Shotgun;
One (1) .45 cal. Pistol;
One (1) .9 mm cal. Pistol
A Search Warrant was then immediately issued to the applicant by Judge
Pampio A. Abarintos.

At about 12:45 in the morning of July 16, 1999, the search warrant was
implemented by P/S Insp. Dueñas as the team leader, SPO2 Eric Mendoza,
SPO2 Eric Abellana. PO1 Allan Jalagpas, PO3 Epifania Manila Sarte and other
members of the PAOCTF. Before reaching appellant's house, the policemen
invited three (3) barangay tanods from Guadalupe's Barangay outpost to
accompany them to the house of the appellant.

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 the PAOCTF 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. An inventory was made at the living
room of appellant in the presence of appellant himself, the barangay tanods
and other persons present during the search. After appellant and the
witnesses signed the inventory receipt, the team proceeded back to their
office with appellant and the confiscated items.

Police Officer IV Dionisio V. Sultan, Chief Clerk of the Firearms and

Explosives Division of the Philippine National Police-Visayas (FED PNP-
Visayas), testified that he prepared a certification dated April 29, 2002.
Based on their office's master, appellant is not licensed to possess any kind
of firearm or ammunition.

For the defense, they presented witness Felipenerie Jacaban, older sister of
the appellant, who testified as to her presence during the conduct of the
search. According to Felipenerie, at about 12:45 in the morning of July 16,
1999, policemen conducted a raid in the house of Gabriel Arda (uncle of
appellant). The policemen who implemented the warrant were looking for his
brother, herein appellant, so she went to appellant's house and informed
him that a raid was conducted at their uncle's house and policemen were
looking for him. When appellant arrived at his uncle's house, policemen
searched around the house and a pistol was subsequently recovered.
Felipenerie claims that the recovered pistol was allegedly pledged by a
policeman to her father. She also testified that appellant never made any
protest and merely observed the proceeding.5
On July 12, 2005, the RTC rendered its Decision6 convicting petitioner of the
crime charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding ACCUSED ARNULFO
a.k.a. ARNOLD JACABAN GUILTY of the crime of violation of PD 1866, as
amended by RA 8294 and sentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of
from SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as minimum to SIX
(6) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS, as maximum, plus fine in the amount of
P30,000.

With cost against the accused.

SO ORDERED.7
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 RTC did not give credence to petitioner’s
claim that he is not the owner of the house but his uncle, Gabriel Arda, as
the latter did not testify at all and was not in the house at the time of the
raid. It was petitioner and his wife who were at the house at 12:45 a.m. of
July 16, 1999; and that petitioner did not protest his arrest.

Petitioner appealed his conviction to the CA. After the respective briefs had
been filed, the case was submitted for decision.

On July 30, 2008, the CA issued its assailed Decision which affirmed in
toto the RTC decision.

The CA agreed with the RTC’s conclusion that the elements of the crime
charged were duly proved by the prosecution. Anent petitioner’s claim of the
alleged discrepancy in the testimony of PO3 Sarte on the time the raid was
conducted, the CA found the same to be minor and did not damage the
essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence in its material whole; and
that such discrepancy was explained by PO3 Sarte in her testimony.
Hence, this petition for review filed by petitioner.

Petitioner argues that 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. He
reiterated his claim that there was discrepancy in the testimony of PO3 Sarte
as to the time the raid was conducted.

As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.8 As such, we are not duty-bound to analyze
and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings
below. The findings of facts by a trial court, when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court.9 This rule, however, is not
without exceptions.10 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.11 The unvarying rule is that ownership
is not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition.12 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.13

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. Animus possidendi is a state of mind, the presence or
determination of which is largely dependent on attendant events in each
case. It may be inferred from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the
accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances.14

Here, the prosecution had proved the essential elements of the crime
charged under PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294. The existence of the seized
firearm and the ammunitions was established through the testimony of PO3
Sarte. There was an inventory of the items seized which was made in the
presence of the petitioner and the three barangay tanods who all voluntarily
signed the inventory receipt. PO3 Sarte identified all the seized items in
open court.

It was convincingly proved that petitioner had constructive possession of the

gun and the ammunitions, coupled with the intent to possess the same.
Petitioner's act of immediately rushing from the living room to the room
where SPO2 Abellana found a calibre .45 and grappled with the latter for the
possession of the gun proved that the gun was under his control and
management. He also had the animus possidendior intent to possess the gun
when he tried to wrest it from SPO2 Abellana.

Petitioner's lack of authority to possess the firearm was established by the

testimony of Police Officer IV Dionisio V. Sultan, Chief Clerk of the Firearms
and Explosive Division of the Philippine National Police-Visayas (FED-PNP-
Visayas) that petitioner is not licensed to possess any kind of firearm or
ammunition based on the FED-PNP master list.

Anent petitioner's argument that the house where the firearm was found was
not owned by him is not persuasive. We quote with approval what the RTC
said in debunking such issue which was affirmed by the CA, thus:
If the accused is not really the owner of the house where the firearm,
ammunitions and other items were found, he should have

protested his arrest. But in the instant case Felipenieri (sic) Jacaban said
that there was no protest at all.

If the accused is not really the owner of the house raided by the police
officers, what was he and his wife doing there at 12:45 in the morning?

The defense asserted that the house of the accused was already demolished
when the road fronting it was widened. But the defense failed to present the
tax declaration covering the said house before it was demolished.

xxx xxx xxx

Gabriel Arda, the alleged owner of the house did not testify. He was
allegedly suffering from hypertension. The defense, however, did not file a
motion to take his deposition.

Felipenieri likewise testified that at the time of the raid, the owner of the
house was not present. Her testimony bolsters the fact that Gabriel Arda is
not really the owner of the house where the raid was conducted.15
Even assuming that petitioner is not the owner of the house where the items
were recovered, the ownership of the house is not an essential element of
the crime under PD 1866 as amended. While petitioner may not be the
owner, he indeed had control of the house as shown by the following
circumstances: (1) When the PAOCTF went to the house to serve the search
warrant, petitioner was very angry and restless and even denied having
committed any illegal act, but he was assured by P/SInsp. Dueñas that he
has nothing to answer if they would not find anything, thus, he consented to
the search being conducted; (2) while the search was ongoing, petitioner
merely observed the conduct of the search and did not make any protest at
all; and (3) petitioner did not call for the alleged owner of the house.
As to the alleged discrepancy in PO3 Sarte's testimony as to the time the
search was conducted, we agree with the CA when it found:
Appellant likewise questions the discrepancies in the testimony of
prosecution witness PO3 Epifania Sarte. Appellant contends that PO3 Sarte
could not even testify correctly as to the time the raid was conducted.
According to appellant, the established fact on records shows that it was
conducted past midnight of July 16, 1999 while witness PO3 Sarte asserted
that it was conducted at 12:45 high noon of said date.

It bears stressing that minor discrepancies might be found in her testimony,

but this does not damage the essential integrity of the evidence in its
material whole, nor should it reflect adversely on the witness' credibility as it
erases suspicion that the same was perjured. Here, prior testimony of PO3
Sarte as to the time of the raid is considered only a trivial matter which is
not even enough to destroy or discredit her credibility. Besides, she was able
to explain her mistake when she previously stated that the search was
conducted at 12:45 noon of July 16, 1999 instead of 12:45 in the morning
as she was hungry when she first testified. The record likewise does not
reveal that PO3 Sarte was actuated by ill-motive in so testifying against
appellant. Thus, when there is nothing to indicate that a witness was
actuated by improper motives, her positive declarations on the witness
stand, made under solemn oath, deserve full faith and credence.16
The RTC sentenced petitioner to an imprisonment of six (6) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years and eight (8)
months, as maximum, plus fine in the amount of P30,000.00. The CA upheld
the RTC. Under PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, the penalty for illegal
possession of firearms classified as high powered, like cal. 45, is prision
mayor minimum and a fine of P30,000.00. Applying Article 64 of the Revised
Penal Code, the maximum period of the imposable penalty cannot
exceed prision mayor minimum in its medium period, there being no
mitigating or aggravating circumstance, i.e., six (6) years, eight (8) months
and one (1) day to seven (7) years and four (4) months. The minimum
period, as provided in the Indeterminate Sentence Law, shall be within the
range of prision correccional in its maximum period, i.e., four (4) years, two
(2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, the penalty next lower in
degree to prision mayor minimum.17 Thus, the minimum penalty imposable
must be modified. Albeit, 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.18

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.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of

Appeals, dated July 30, 2008, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
ranging from SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional in its maximum period,
as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY
of prision mayor minimum in its medium period, as maximum, and to pay a
fine of P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Villarama, Jr., Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, with Associate Justices

Antonio L. Villamor and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring; rollo, pp. 21-30.

2 Docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-51111.

3Id. at 22.

4Id.

5Id. at 23-25. (Citations omitted)

6Id. at 31-38; Per Judge Meinrado P. Paredes.

7Id. at 38.

8Salcedo v. People, 400 Phil. 1302, 1308 (2000).

9Id. at 1304.

10(1) When the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court
are contradictory;

(2) When the conclusion is a findings grounded entirely on speculation,

surmises, or conjectures;

(3) When the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of
fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;

(4) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;

(5) When the appellate court, in making its findings, goes beyond the issues
of the case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee;

(6) When the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a

misapprehension of facts;

(7) When the Court of Appeals failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;

(8) When the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;

(9) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific
evidence on which they are based; and

(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the
absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on
record (Id. at 1308-1309).

11Evangelista v. People, 634 Phil. 207, 227 (2010); People v. Eling, G.R. No.
178546, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 724, 738; Gonzales v. Court of Appeals,
343 Phil. 297, 305 (1997).

12Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, supra.

13Id.

14People v. Lian, 325 Phil. 881, 889 (1996).

15Rollo, p. 27.

16Id. at 28.

17Cupcupin v. People, 440 Phil. 712, 733 (2002).

18Peoplev. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 555,
574.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

CEDRIC SAYCO y VILLANUEVA, G.R. No. 159703

Petitioner,
Present:

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:

Respondent. March 3, 2008
x------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assailing the May 23, 2003 Resolution[1] of the Court Appeals (CA) which affirmed
the conviction of Cedric Sayco y Villanueva[2] (petitioner) for violation of Section 1,
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8294; as
well as the August 7, 2003 CA Resolution[3] which denied his Motion for Reconsideration.
The facts are not disputed.

Petitioner was charged before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bais City with
illegal possession of firearms under an Information which reads:

The undersigned Prosecutor II hereby accuses ZEDRIC SAYCO Y VILLANUEVA of the

crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions penalized and defined under
Section 1 of Presidential Decree Number 1866 as amended by Republic Act Number 8294,
committed as follows:

That on or about January 3, 1999, at Bais City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously possess and carry away one (1) caliber 9MM marked SIGSAUER P229
with fourteen (14) live ammunitions and with Serial Number AE 25171, without first
having obtained the proper license or authority to possess the same.

An act contrary.[4]

Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of Not Guilty.[5]

On August 2, 2002, the MTCC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds that the evidence presented has
sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
accused Zedric V. Sayco is convicted for violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No.
1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294. There being no modifying circumstances,
and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentences the accused to a prison
term ranging from THREE YEARS, SIX MONTHS AND TWENTY DAYS
of Prision Correccional Medium as minimum, to FIVE YEARS, FOUR MONTHS and
TWENTY DAYS of PrisionCorreccional Maximum as maximum, and to pay a fine of
FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS. The firearm (Exhibit A) and the ammunitions (Exhibit
B) are forfeited in favor of the government, to be disposed of in accordance with law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.[6]

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bais City issued a Decision
dated March 14, 2003, affirming the conviction of petitioner but lowering his
penalty as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Judgment dated August 2, 2002 rendered by the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bais City in Criminal Case No. 99-001 is hereby affirmed
in all respects subject only to the modification with respect to the penalty imposed by the
trial court. The herein accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of
 four (4) months of arresto mayor as maximum [sic] to two (2) years, four (4) months and
one (1) day of prision correccional as maximum [sic].

SO ORDERED.[7]

Petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for Review but the same was denied in the May 23,
2003 CA Resolution assailed herein. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration[8] was also
denied by the CA in its August 7, 2003 Resolution.

Hence, the present Petition raising the following issues:

I
Whether the lower court erred in convicting the petitioner for violation of P.D. 1866, as
amended by RA 8294, despite the latters proof of authority to possess the subject firearm.

II
Whether the prosecutions evidence proved the petitioners guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[9]

As summarized by the RTC and MTCC, the evidence for the prosecution consisted of the
following:

EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION

The first prosecution witness in the person of PO3 Mariano Labe testified on January 17,
2002. He declared that on or about 3:35 in the afternoon of January 3, 1999, while they
were at the Police Station, they received a telephone call from a concerned citizen
from Tavera Street, Bais City, informing them that one unidentified person was
inside Abuevas 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. The arrested person was identified
as Zedric Sayco y Villanueva, a resident of Binalbagan, Negros Occidental.

SPO2 VALENTINO ZAMORA, member of the PNP Bais City, testified on February 26,
2002. He was presented to corroborate the testimony of Mariano Labe. He further declared
that during the incident, they talked to the accused in Cebuano, but they found out then that
the latter is an Ilonggo, so they spoke to him in English.

SPO2 VICENTE DORADO also testified on February 26, 2002. He corroborated the
testimony of SPO2 Valentino Zamora and PO2 Mariano Labe.

The following exhibits were admitted as part of the evidence of the prosecution:

Exhibit A - one (1) 9 mm pistol with serial no. 25171.

Exhibit B - fourteen (14) pieces live ammunition and one (1) magazine placed in a
black plastic bag.
Exhibit C - Joint Affidavit of the police officers.[10] (Emphasis supplied)
For his defense, petitioner does not deny that he was in possession of the subject firearm
and ammunitions when he was apprehended on January 3, 1999 in Bais City, but he insists
that he had the requisite permits to carry the same, specifically:
1) Memorandum Receipt for Equipment (Non-expendable Property), which reads:

Hqs Field Station 743, 7ISU, ISG, PA, Camp Montelibano Sr., Bacolod City, Philippines,
01 January 1999. I acknowledge to have received from MAJOR RICARDO B. BAYHON
(INF) PA, Commanding Officer, FS743, 7ISU, ISG, PA the following property for which I
am responsible, subject to the provision of the accounting law and which will be used in the
office of FS 7431.

QTY UNIT NAME OF DESCRIPTION CLASSI- UNIT TOTAL

FICATION PRICE
1 ea Cal 9mm (SIG SAUER) Pistol
SN: AE 25171
2 ea Mags for Cal 9mm pistol
24 ea Ctgs for 9mm Ammo
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-NOTHING FOLLOWS-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Basis: For use of subject EP in connection with his official duties/mission in the
AOR.

NOTED BY: APPROVED BY:

Nolasco B. James (SGD) RICARDO B BAYHON (SGD)
SSg (Inf) PA Major (INF) PA
FS Supply NCO Commanding Officer

CA Zedric V. Zayco (SGD)

Confidential Agent;[11]

and 2) Mission Order dated January 1, 1999, thus:

Mission Orders
Number: FS743-A-241
TO: CA Cedric V. Zayco

I. DESTINATION Negros Island

II. PURPOSE C O N F I D E N T I A L
III. DURATION 01 January 1999 to 31 March 1999
IV. AUTHORIZED ATTIRE/UNIFORM
GOA ( ) BDA ( ) Civilian (x)
V. AUTHORIZED TO CARRY FIREARMS: (x) Yes ( ) No.
Caliber Make Kind Serial Nr MR/License Nr Nr Ammo
Sig Sauer
9mm Pistol AE25171 ISG Prop 24 rds
VI. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS:
a. For personnel in uniform, the firearms shall be placed in holster securely
attached to the belt. Personnel in uniform without holster and personnel in
civilian attire will ensure that their firearms are concealed unless in actual and
lawful use.

xxxx
RICARDO B. BAYHON (SGD)
Major (INF) PA
FS 743 Commander[12]

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.[13] The
RTC added that, as held in Pastrano v. Court of Appeals[14] and Belga v. Buban,[15] said
documents cannot take the place of the requisite license.[16]

The CA wholly concurred with both courts.

In the present Petition, 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;[17] 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.[18]

The Solicitor General filed his Comment,[19] pointing out that good faith is not a valid
defense in the crime of illegal possession of firearms.[20]

The arguments of petitioner are not tenable.

The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of firearms is the accused's lack of
license or permit to possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited by
law.[21] To establish the corpus delicti, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the
firearm exists and that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the
corresponding license or permit to possess or carry the same.[22]

There is no dispute over these key facts: first, that the subject firearm and ammunitions
exist; second, that petitioner had possession thereof at the time of his apprehension; third,
that petitioner is a confidential agent of the ISG-AFP; fourth, that petitioner lacks a license
issued by the Firearms and Explosives Unit of the PNP; and fifth, that petitioner holds a
Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order covering the subject firearm and
ammunitions. Thus, the issue to be resolved is confined to whether petitioner's
Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order constitute sufficient authority for him to possess
the subject firearm and ammunitions and carry the same outside of his residence, without
violating P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294.

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,[23] 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.[24] Petitioner
interposed no new argument that would convince this Court to abandon a deep-rooted
jurisprudence.

However, rather than outrightly dismiss the present petition in the light of existing
jurisprudence, this Court finds it opportune to examine the rules governing the issuance of
memorandum receipts and mission orders covering government-owned firearms to special
and confidential civilian agents, in order to pave the way for a more effective regulation of
the proliferation of such firearms and the abatement of crimes, such as extra-judicial
killings, attendant to such phenomenon.

In 1901, the United States Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 175, providing for the
organization of an Insular Constabulary. Section 6 vested in the Chief of the Insular
Constabulary the following authority over the distribution of firearms:
Section 6. The Insular Chief shall prescribe for the Insular Constabulary suitable arms,
uniform, and equipment and shall report to the Commission, through the Civil Governor,
his action in this regard, together with a statement of the cost, to the end that appropriation
may be made to defray the cost thereof. The guns, revolvers, and ammunitions needed
to equip the insular and municipal police shall be purchased by the Insular
Purchasing Agent on the order of the Chief of Insular Constabulary, by whom they
shall be distributed to the provinces and municipalities as they may be needed. The
Chief of the Insular Constabulary shall keep a record of the guns and revolvers
distributed, by their numbers, to municipalities and provinces x x x. (Emphasis
supplied)

Firearms owned by the government may therefore be distributed by the Chief of the Insular
Constabulary to the members of the insular and municipal police, with merely a record of
the distribution being required.

Shortly, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1780[25] regulating possession of
firearms:

Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, for purposes of sale, to
import, buy or otherwise acquire, dispose of, possess, or have the custody of any rifle,
musket, carbine, shotgun, revolver, pistol, or air rifle, except air rifles of small caliber and
limited range used as toys, or any other deadly weapon x x x unless and until such
person, firm, or corporation shall secure a license, pay the license fee, and execute a
bond and otherwise comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules and regulations
issued in executive orders by the Governor-General pursuant to the provisions of this Act
x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

but exempted therefrom the following government-owned firearms:

Section 16. The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to firearms and
ammunition therefor regularly and lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or
marines of the United States Army and Navy, the Constabulary, guards in the
employ of the Bureau of Prisons, the police force of the City of Manila, provincial
prisoners and jails when such firearms are in possession of such officials and public
servants for use in the performance of their official duties. (Emphasis supplied)

The 1917 Revised Administrative Code[26] retained the foregoing exemption:

Section 879. Exemption as to firearms and ammunition used by military and naval
forces or by peace officers. - This article shall not apply to firearms and ammunition
regularly and lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or marines of the Unites
States Army and Navy, the Philippine Constabulary, guards in the employment of
the Bureau of Prisons, municipal police, provincial governors, lieutenant governors,
provincial treasurers, municipal police, provincial governors, lieutenant governors,
 provincial treasurers, municipal treasurers, municipal presidents, and guards of
provincial prisoners and jails, when such firearms are in possession of such officials
and public servants for use in the performance of their official duties. (Emphasis
supplied)

In People of the Philippines v. Macarandang,[27] we interpreted Section 879 of the

1917 Revised Administrative Code as applicable to a secret agent appointed by a governor
as said agent holds a position equivalent to that of peace officer or member of the
municipal police. We reiterated this ruling in People of the Philippines v. Licera.[28]

In People v. Asa,[29] we acquitted a civilian guard from a charge of illegal possession of

firearms on the ground that he acted in good faith in bearing the firearms issued to him by
his superior.

Two years later, in People v. Mapa,[30] the Court, speaking through Justice
Fernando, overhauled its interpretation of Section 879, thus:

The law is explicit that except as thereafter specially allowed, "it shall be unlawful for any
person to x x x possess any firearm, detached parts of firearms or ammunition therefor, or
any instrument or implement used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms,
parts of firearms, or ammunition." The next section provides that "firearms and
ammunition regularly and lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or marines [of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines], the Philippine Constabulary, guards in the employment
of the Bureau of Prisons, municipal police, provincial governors, lieutenant governors,
provincial treasurers, municipal treasurers, municipal mayors, and guards of provincial
prisoners and jails," are not covered "when such firearms are in possession of such officials
and public servants for use in the performance of their official duties."

The law cannot be any clearer. No provision is made for a secret agent. As
such he is not exempt. Our task is equally clear. The first and fundamental duty of courts
is to apply the law. "Construction and interpretation come only after it has been
demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them." The conviction of
the accused must stand. It cannot be set aside.

Accused however would rely on People v. Macarandang, where a secret agent was
acquitted on appeal on the assumption that the appointment "of the accused as a secret
agent to assist in the maintenance of peace and order campaigns and detection of crimes,
sufficiently put him within the category of a "peace officer" equivalent even to a member of
the municipal police expressly covered by section 879." Such reliance is misplaced. It is
not within the power of this Court to set aside the clear and explicit mandate of a
statutory provision. To the extent therefore that this decision conflicts with what was
held in People v. Macarandang, it no longer speaks with authority.[31] (Emphasis
supplied)

We also abandoned the view that good faith is a defense against a prosecution for illegal
possession of firearms.[32]

On June 29, 1983, P.D. No. 1866 was issued, imposing stiffer penalties on illegal
possession of firearms. It also added the following separate requirement for carrying
firearms:
Section 1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of
firearms and ammunition or implements used or intended to be used in the manufacture of
firearms or ammunition. - x x xThe penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any
 person who shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal
authority therefor.

xxxx

Section 7. Unauthorized issuance of authority to carry firearms and/or

ammunition outside of residence. - The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed
upon any person, civilian or military, who shall issue authority to carry firearm and/or
ammunition outside of residence without authority therefor.

P.D. No. 1866 was later amended by R.A. No. 8294,[33] which lowered the imposable
penalties for illegal possession of firearm when no other crime is committed. However,
neither law amended or repealed Section 879 of the 1917 Revised Administrative
Code. Even Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the 1987 Administrative
Code,[34] left Section 879 untouched.

As matters stand, therefore, Section 879, as construed by this Court in Mapa and Neri, and
reinforced by paragraph 6, Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, is
still the basic law on the issuance, possession and carrying of government-owned firearms.

In exercise of its rule-making authority under Section 8[35] of P.D. No. 1866, the Chief of
the Philippine Constabulary issued The Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. No.
1866, which includes the following provisions salient to the issuance, possession and
carrying of government-owned firearms:

Section 1. Definition of terms. - For purposes of Presidential Decree No. 1866, the
following terms shall mean and be interpreted as hereinafter defined:

xxxx

d. Mission Order - is a written directive or order issued by government authority as

enumerated in Section 5 hereof to persons who are under his supervision and control for a
definite purpose or objective during a specified period and to such place or places as therein
mentioned which may entitle the bearer thereof to carry his duly issued or licensed
firearm outside of his residence when so specified therein.
e. Permit to Carry Firearm Outside of Residence - is a written authority issued to
any person by the Chief of Constabulary which entitles such person to carry his licensed or
lawfully issued firearms outside of residence for the duration and purpose specified
therein.

f. Residence - refers to that place where the firearm and ammunition are being
permanently kept. It includes the office or house where they are kept and the premises of
the house enclosed by walls and gates separating said premises from adjacent
properties. For firearms covered by a regular license or special permit, their residence
shall be that specified in the license or permit; and those covered by a Certificate of
Registration or a Memorandum Receipt, their residence in the office/station to which
the grantee belongs.

xxxx

Section 5. Authority to issue mission order involving the carrying of firearm. - The
following are authorized to issue mission orders with provisions which may entitle the
 bearer thereof to carry his issued/licensed firearm and ammunition for the duration of such
mission:

a. For officers, men and regular civilian agents of the Ministry of National
Defense (MOND)/Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) including members of the
ICHDF:

xxxx

(8) Provincial commanders, METRODISCOM commanders, company

commanders and their equivalent in the Philippine Air Force and Philippine Navy.

xxxx

Section 6. Specific guidelines in the carrying of firearms outside of residence. -

The following specific guidelines shall be strictly observed in the carrying of firearm
outside of residence:

a. Lawful Holders of Firearm Lawful holders of firearm (regular licenses, special

permit, certificate of registration or M/R) are prohibited from carrying their firearms
outside of residence except when they have been issued by the Chief of Constabulary a
permit to carry firearm outside of their residence as provided for in Section hereof or in
actual performance of duty or official mission under Section 4 and 5
hereof. (Emphasis supplied.)

Section 6 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations was later amended to read as
follows:

a-1. Mission Order. - x x x No Mission Order shall be issued to any civilian agent
authorizing the same to carry firearms outside of residence unless he/she is included in the
regular plantilla of the government agency involved in law enforcement and is receiving
regular compensation for the services he/she is rendering in the agency. Further, the
civilian agent must be included in a specific law enforcement/police/intelligence project
proposal or special project which specifically requires the use of firearm(s) to insure its
accomplishment and that the project is duly approved at the PC Regional Command level
or its equivalent level in other major services of the AFP, INP and NBI, or at higher level of
command. (Emphasis supplied)

The Ministry of Justice also issued Memorandum Circular No. 8 dated October 16, 1986,
further strengthening the foregoing Implementing Rules and Regulations, to wit:

x x x It is unlawful for any person or office to issue a mission order authorizing the
carrying of firearms by any person unless the following conditions are met:

1. That the AFP officer is authorized by the law to issue the mission order.

2. That the recipient or addressee of the mission order is also authorized by the law
to have a mission order, i.e., he must be an organic member of the command/unit of the
AFP officer issuing the mission order. If mission orders are issued to civilians (not
members of the uniformed service), they must be civilian agents included in the
regular plantilla of the government agency involved in law enforcement and are
receiving regular compensation for services they are rendering. (Emphasis supplied)

Earlier, a Letter Directive dated May 19, 1984[36] was issued to the Chief of Staff of the
AFP, prohibiting the issuance of government-owned firearms to civilians, viz:
 4. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. 1866 which codifies all the
laws on firearms and explosives clarify the following:

xxxx

b. Section 5 identifies the officials/officers of the MOND/AFP who are authorized

to issue Mission Orders to enable AFP officers, men and regular civilian agents carry their
firearms in the performance of their duties. Regular civilian agents are those who are
covered by Permanent or Temporary Civil Service attested appointments in the plantilla of
civilian employees. Special or confidential civilian agents or the like are not regular
civilian agents and are therefore violating the law when they carry firearms
(personal-owned or government-issued) with Mission Orders.

c. There are no other laws or AFP regulations authorizing the loan of AFP-owned
firearms to private firms and individuals. (Emphasis supplied)

It is noted that the Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. No. 1866, as amended,
allude to memorandum receipts covering government-owned firearms. While said rules do
not define the term, we can derive its meaning from Section 492 of the Government
Auditing and Accounting Manual (Volume I: Government Auditing Rules and
Regulations)[37] to wit:

Section 492. Issues of equipment to officers and employees. - Equipment issued

by the property officer for official use of officials and employees shall be covered by
Memorandum Receipt for Equipment (MR) which shall be renewed every January of
the third year after issue. MRs not renewed after three years shall not be considered in
making physical count of the equipment. (Emphasis supplied)

From the foregoing discussion, therefore, 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.

Neither was petitioner authorized to bear the subject firearm and ammunitions outside of
his residence. The mission order issued to petitioner was illegal, given that he is not a
regular civilian agent but a mere confidential civilian agent. Worse, petitioner was not even
acting as such confidential civilian agent at the time he was carrying the subject firearm
and ammunitions. Petitioner testified that at that time, he was not on an official mission
in Bais City but had merely visited the place to attend to a family emergency.[40]
While this Court sustains the conviction of petitioner for illegal possession of firearms, we
re-examine the imprisonment term to which petitioner was sentenced by the RTC, as
affirmed by the CA.

The MTCC imposed on petitioner the penalty of imprisonment for three (3) years, six (6)
months and twenty (20) days of prision correccional medium as minimum, to five (5)
years, four (4) months and twenty (20) days of prision correccional maximum as
maximum.[41] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the RTC lowered the penalty to
four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to two (2) years, four (4) months and one
(1) day of prision correccional as maximum.[42] The CA affirmed the RTC.

A further revision of the penalty is warranted in view of the special provision in the
Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable to crimes penalized by a special law, to wit:
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the
Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and
the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed
by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which
shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less
than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (Emphasis supplied)

P.D. No. 1866 imposed the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua for illegal possession of firearms. R.A. No. 8294 lowered the penalty,
as follows:
 Section 1. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:

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 correccional in its maximum period and a fine
of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed upon
any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or
possess any low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and
other firearm of similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or
machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the
manufacture of any firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no other crime
was committed. (Emphasis supplied.)

Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, prision correccional in its maximum period
ranges from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, to six (6) years. As prescribed
under Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appropriate penalty that can be
imposed on petitioner should keep within said range. Thus, there being no attendant
mitigating or aggravating circumstance, and considering that petitioner accepted the subject
firearm and ammunitions from the government under the erroneous notion that the
memorandum receipt and mission order issued to him legitimized his possession thereof,
the appropriate indeterminate penalty is four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day as
minimum to five (5) years, four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days as maximum.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. However, for reasons stated in the text of
herein Decision, the Resolutions dated May 23, 2003 and August 7, 2003 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 27228 together with the Decision dated March 14, 2003 of the
Regional Trial Court of Bais City are MODIFIED insofar only as the penalty of
imprisonment is concerned. PetitionerCedric Sayco y Villanueva is sentenced to serve an
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day
of prision correccional as minimum, to five (5) years, four (4) months and twenty-one (21)
days of prision correccional as maximum.

SO ORDERED.

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice

RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief Justice
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
 SECOND DIVISION

TEOFILO EVANGELISTA, G.R. No. 163267

Petitioner,

Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

- versus- BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD, and
PEREZ, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:

Respondent. May 5, 2010
x-----------------------------------------------------------------
--x

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

To be guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, one

does not have to be in actual physical possession thereof. The law does not punish
physical possession alone but possession in general, which includes constructive
possession or the subjection of the thing to the owners control.[1]

This Petition for Review on Certiorari[2] assails the October 15, 2003
Decision[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 21805 which affirmed the
January 23, 1998 Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch
109 convicting petitioner Teofilo Evangelista for violation of Section 1, Presidential
Decree (PD) No. 1866,[5] as amended, as well as the April 16, 2004 Resolution which
denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.

Factual Antecedents

In an Information[6] dated January 31, 1996, petitioner was charged with violation of
Section 1 of PD 1866 allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about the 30th day of January 1996, at the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport, Pasay City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there, wilfully,
 unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control the
following items:

1. One (1) Unit 9mm Jericho Pistol, Israel with SN F-36283 with one (1)
magazine;

2. One (1) Unit Mini-Uzi 9mm Israel Submachine gun with SN 931864
with two (2) magazines;

3. Nineteen (19) 9mm bullets.

without the corresponding permit or license from competent authority.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

After posting his bail, petitioner filed on February 14, 1996 an Urgent Motion for (a)
Suspension of Proceedings and (b) the Holding of A Preliminary Investigation.[7] The
RTC granted the motion and, accordingly, the State Prosecutor conducted the preliminary
investigation.

In a Resolution[8] dated March 6, 1996, the State Prosecutor found no probable cause to
indict petitioner and thus recommended the reversal of the resolution finding probable
cause and the dismissal of the complaint. Thereafter, a Motion to Withdraw
Information[9] was filed but it was denied by the trial court in an Order[10] dated March 26,
1996, viz:

Acting on the Motion to Withdraw Information filed by State Prosecutor Aida

Macapagal on the ground that [there exists] no probable cause to indict the
accused, the Information having been already filed in Court, the matter should
be left to the discretion of the Court to assess the evidence, hence, for lack of
merit, the same is hereby denied. Let the arraignment of the accused proceed.

When arraigned on March 26, 1996, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the
charge. Thereafter, trial ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

In the morning of January 30, 1996, Maximo Acierto, Jr. (Acierto), a Customs Police
assigned at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) District Command, was
informed by his superior that a certain passenger of Philippine Airlines (PAL) Flight No.
657 would be arriving from Dubai bringing with him firearms and ammunitions. Shortly
after lunch, Acierto, together with Agents Cuymo and Fuentabella, proceeded to the tube
area where they were met by a crewmember who introduced to them herein petitioner.
Acierto asked petitioner if he brought firearms with him and the latter answered in the
affirmative adding that the same were bought in Angola. Thereupon, Acierto was
summoned to the cockpit by the pilot, Capt. Edwin Nadurata (Capt. Nadurata), where the
firearms and ammunitions were turned over to him. Petitioner was then escorted to the
arrival area to get his luggage and thereafter proceeded to the examination room where
the luggage was examined and petitioner was investigated. In open court, Acierto
identified the firearms and ammunitions.

During the investigation, petitioner admitted before Special Agent Apolonio Bustos
(Bustos) that he bought the subject items in Angola but the same were confiscated by
the Dubai authorities, which turned over the same to a PAL personnel in Dubai. Upon
inquiry, the Firearms and Explosive Office (FEO) in Camp Crame certified that
petitioner is neither registered with said office[11] nor licensed holder of aforesaid firearms
and ammunitions. Bustos likewise verified from the Bureau of Customs, but his effort
yielded no record to show that the firearms were legally purchased. Among the
documents Bustos had gathered during his investigation were the Arrival Endorsement
Form[12] and Customs Declaration Form.[13] A referral letter[14] was prepared endorsing
the matter to the Department of Justice. Bustos admitted that petitioner was not assisted
by counsel when the latter admitted that he bought the firearms in Angola.

SPO4 Federico Bondoc, Jr. (SPO4 Bondoc), a member of the Philippine National Police
(PNP) and representative of the FEO, upon verification, found that petitioner is not a
licensed/registered firearm holder. His office issued a certification[15] to that effect which
he identified in court as Exhibit A.

After the prosecution rested its case, petitioner, with leave of court, filed his Demurrer to
Evidence,[16] the resolution of which was deferred pending submission of petitioners
evidence.[17]

Version of the Defense

The defense presented Capt. Nadurata whose brief but candid and straightforward
narration of the event was synthesized by the CA as follows:

x x x On January 30, 1996, he was approached by the PAL Station Manager in

Dubai, who informed him that a Filipino contract worker from Angola who is
listed as a passenger of PAL flight from Dubai to Manila, was being detained
as he was found in possession of firearms; that if said passenger will not be
able to board the airplane, he would be imprisoned in Dubai; and that the
Arabs will only release the passenger if the Captain of PAL would accept
custody of the passenger [herein petitioner] and the firearms. Capt. Nadurata
agreed to take custody of the firearms and the passenger, herein appellant, so
that the latter could leave Dubai. The firearms were deposited by the Arabs in
the cockpit of the airplane and allowed the appellant to board the airplane.
Upon arrival in Manila, Capt. Nadurata surrendered the firearms to the airport
authorities.
Meanwhile, in view of the unavailability of the defenses intended witness, Nilo Umayaw
(Umayaw), the PAL Station Manager in Dubai, the prosecution and the defense agreed
and stipulated on the following points:

1. That PAL Station Manager Mr. Nilo Umayaw was told by a Dubai
Police that firearms and ammunitions were found in the luggage of a
Filipino passenger coming from Angola going to the Philippines;

2. That he was the one who turned over the subject firearms to Captain
Edwin Nadurata, the Pilot in command of PAL Flight 657;

3. That the subject firearms [were] turned over at Dubai;

4. That the said firearms and ammunitions were confiscated from the
accused Teofilo Evangelista and the same [were] given to the PAL Station
Manager who in turn submitted [them] to the PAL Pilot, Capt. Edwin
Nadurata who has already testified;

5. That [these are] the same firearms involved in this case.[18]

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On February 4, 1997, the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

In view of all the foregoing, the Court finds accused TEOFILO E.

EVANGELISTA guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sec. 1, P.D.
1866 as amended (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions: (One (1)
Unit Mini-Uzi 9mm Israel submachine gun with SN-931864 with two (2)
magazines and nineteen (19) 9mm bullets) and hereby sentences him to
imprisonment of Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) Months to Twenty (20)
Years.

The above-mentioned firearms are hereby ordered forfeited in favor of

the government and is ordered transmitted to the National Bureau of
Investigation, Manila for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.[19]

On April 4, 1997, petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial[20] which the RTC
granted.[21] Forthwith, petitioner took the witness stand narrating his own version of the
incident as follows:

On January 28, 1996, he was at Dubai International Airport waiting for his flight
to the Philippines. He came from Luwanda, Angola where he was employed as a seaman
at Oil International Limited. While at the airport in Dubai, Arab policemen suddenly
accosted him and brought him to their headquarters where he saw guns on top of a
table. The Arabs maltreated him and forced him to admit ownership of the guns. At this
point, PAL Station Manager Umayaw came and talked to the policemen in Arabian
dialect. Umayaw told him that he will only be released if he admits ownership of the
guns. When he denied ownership of the same, Umayaw reiterated that he (petitioner) will
be released only if he will bring the guns with him to the Philippines. He declined and
insisted that the guns are not his. Upon the request of Umayaw, petitioner was brought to
the Duty Free area for his flight going to the Philippines. When he was inside the plane,
he saw the Arab policemen handing the guns to the pilot. Upon arrival at the NAIA, he
was arrested by the Customs police and brought to the arrival area where his passport was
stamped and he was made to sign a Customs Declaration Form without reading its
contents. Thereafter, he was brought to a room at the ground floor of the NAIA where he
was investigated. During the investigation, he was not represented by counsel and was
forced to accept ownership of the guns. He denied ownership of the guns and the fact that
he admitted having bought the same in Angola.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

After new trial, the RTC still found petitioner liable for the offense charged but modified
the penalty of imprisonment. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated January 23,
1998 reads:

In view of all the foregoing, the Court finds accused TEOFILO E.

EVANGELISTA guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sec. 1, P.D.
1866 as amended (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions: One (1)
Unit 9mm Jerico Pistol, Israel with SN F-36283 with one (1) magazine; One
(1) Unit Mini-Uzi 9mm Israel submachine gun with SN-931864 with two (2)
magazines and nineteen (19) 9mm bullets and hereby sentences him to
imprisonment of Six (6) Years and One (1) Day to Eight (8) Years and a fine
of P30,000.00.

The above-mentioned firearms are hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the

government and [are] ordered transmitted to the National Bureau of
Investigation, Manila for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.[22]

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the trial court in its Decision
dated October 15, 2003. It ruled that the stipulations during the trial are binding on
petitioner. As regards possession of subject firearms, the appellate court ruled that Capt.
Naduratas custody during the flight from Dubai to Manila was for and on behalf of
petitioner. Thus, there was constructive possession.
 Petitioner moved for reconsideration[23] but it was denied by the appellate court in
its April 16, 2004 Resolution.

Hence, this petition.

Issues

Petitioner assigns the following errors:

a. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in not acquitting Evangelista from the
charge of Presidential Decree No. 1866, Illegal Possession of Firearms.

b. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in not holding that Evangelista was
never in possession of any firearm or ammunition within Philippine
jurisdiction and he therefore could not have committed the crime
charged against him.

c. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that Evangelista committed a

continuing crime.

d. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in disregarding the results of the

preliminary investigation.[24]

We find the appeal devoid of merit.

At the outset, we emphasize that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a petition
for review on certiorari shall only raise questions of law considering that the findings of
fact of the CA are, as a general rule, conclusive upon and binding on the Supreme
Court.[25] In this recourse, petitioner indulges us to calibrate once again the evidence
adduced by the parties and to re-evaluate the credibility of their witnesses. On this ground
alone, the instant petition deserves to be denied outright. However, as the liberty of
petitioner is at stake and following the principle that an appeal in a criminal case throws
the whole case wide open for review, we are inclined to delve into the merits of the
present petition.

In his bid for acquittal, petitioner argues that he could not have committed the crime
imputed against him for he was never in custody and possession of any firearm or
ammunition when he arrived in the Philippines. Thus, the conclusion of the appellate
court that he was in constructive possession of the subject firearms and ammunitions is
erroneous.

We are not persuaded. As correctly found by the CA:

 Appellants argument that he was never found in possession of the subject
firearms and ammunitions within Philippine jurisdiction is specious. It is
worthy to note that at the hearing of the case before the court a quo on October
8, 1996, the defense counsel stipulated that the subject firearms and
ammunitions were confiscated from appellant and the same were given to
PAL Station Manager Nilo Umayaw who, in turn, turned over the same to
Capt. Edwin Nadurata. Such stipulation of fact is binding on appellant, for the
acts of a lawyer in the defense of a case are the acts of his client. Granting that
Nilo Umayaw was merely told by the Dubai authorities that the firearms and
ammunitions were found in the luggage of appellant and that Umayaw had no
personal knowledge thereof, however, appellants signature on the Customs
Declaration Form, which contains the entry 2 PISTOL guns SENT
SURRENDER TO PHILIPPINE AIRLINE, proves that he was the one who
brought the guns to Manila. While appellant claims that he signed the Customs
Declaration Form without reading it because of his excitement, however, he
does not claim that he was coerced or persuaded in affixing his signature
thereon. The preparation of the Customs Declaration Form is a requirement for
all arriving passengers in an international flight. Moreover, it cannot be said
that appellant had already been arrested when he signed the Customs
Declaration Form. He was merely escorted by Special Agent Acierto to the
arrival area of the NAIA. In fact, appellant admitted that it was only after he
signed the Customs Declaration Form that he was brought to the ground floor
of NAIA for investigation. Consequently, appellant was in constructive
possession of the subject firearms. As held in People v. Dela Rosa, the kind of
possession punishable under PD 1866 is one where the accused possessed a
firearm either physically or constructively with animus possidendi or intention
to possess the same. Animus possidendi is a state of mind. As such, what goes
on into the mind of the accused, as his real intent, could be determined solely
based on his prior and coetaneous acts and the surrounding circumstances
explaining how the subject firearm came to his possession.

Appellants witness, Capt. Nadurata, the PAL pilot of Flight No. PR 657
from Dubai to Manila on January 30, 1996, testified that he accepted custody
of the firearms and of appellant in order that the latter, who was being detained
in Dubai for having been found in possession of firearms, would be released
from custody. In other words, Capt. Naduratas possession of the firearm
during the flight from Dubai to Manilawas for and on behalf of appellant.[26]

We find no cogent reason to deviate from the above findings, especially considering
petitioners admission during the clarificatory questioning by the trial court:
Court: So, it is clear now in the mind of the Court, that the firearms and
ammunitions will also be with you on your flight to Manila, is that
correct?
A: Yes, your honor.

Court: [You] made mention of that condition, that the Dubai police agreed to
release you provided that you will bring the guns and ammunitions
with you? Is that the condition of the Dubai Police?
A: Yes, your honor.
 Court: The condition of his release was that he will have to bring the guns and
ammunitions to the Philippines and this arrangement was made by the
PAL Supervisor at Dubai and it was Mr. Umayaw the PAL Supervisor,
who interceded in his behalf with the Dubai Police for his flight in
the Philippines.[27]

To us, this constitutes judicial admission of his possession of the subject firearms and
ammunitions. This admission, the veracity of which requires no further proof, may be
controverted only upon a clear showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that
no admission was made.[28] No such controversion is extant on record.

Moreover, we cannot ignore the Customs Declaration Form wherein it appeared that
petitioner brought the firearms with him upon his arrival in the Philippines. While there
was no showing that he was forced to sign the form, petitioner can only come up with the
excuse that he was excited. Hardly can we accept such pretension.

We are likewise not swayed by petitioners contention that the lower court erroneously
relied on the Customs Declaration Form since it is not admissible in evidence because it
was accomplished without the benefit of counsel while he was under police custody.

The accomplishment of the Customs Declaration Form was not elicited through custodial
investigation. It is a customs requirement which petitioner had a clear obligation to
comply. As correctly observed by the CA, the preparation of the Customs Declaration
Form is a requirement for all arriving passengers in an international flight. Petitioner was
among those passengers.Compliance with the constitutional procedure on custodial
investigation is, therefore, not applicable in this case. Moreover, it is improbable that the
customs police were the ones who filled out the declaration form. As will be noted, it
provides details that only petitioner could have possibly known or supplied. Even
assuming that there was prior accomplishment of the form which contains incriminating
details, petitioner could have easily taken precautionary measures by not affixing his
signature thereto. Or he could have registered his objection thereto especially when no
life threatening acts were being employed against him upon his arrival in the country.

Obviously, it was not only the Customs Declaration Form from which the courts below
based their conclusion that petitioner was in constructive possession of subject firearms
and ammunitions. Emphasis was also given on the stipulations and admissions made
during the trial. These pieces of evidence are enough to show that he was the owner and
possessor of these items.

Petitioner contends that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the case filed against
him. He claims that his alleged possession of the subject firearms transpired while he was
at the DubaiAirport and his possession thereof has ceased when he left for
the Philippines. He insists that since Dubai is outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the Philippines and his situation is not one of the exceptions provided in Article 2 of the
Revised Penal Code, our criminal laws are not applicable. In short, he had not committed
a crime within the Philippines.

Indeed it is fundamental that the place where the crime was committed determines not
only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction.[29] In order for the
courts to acquire jurisdiction in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed
or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court. If the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense
was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of
jurisdiction.[30]

Contrary to the arguments put forward by petitioner, we entertain no doubt that the crime
of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition for which he was charged was
committed in the Philippines. The accomplishment by petitioner of the Customs
Declaration Form upon his arrival at the NAIA is very clear evidence that he was already
in possession of the subject firearms in the Philippines.

And more than mere possession, the prosecution was able to ascertain that he has no
license or authority to possess said firearms. It bears to stress that the essence of the crime
penalized under PD 1866, as amended, is primarily the accuseds lack of license to
possess the firearm. The fact of lack or absence of license constitutes an essential
ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of firearm. Since it has been shown that
petitioner was already in the Philippines when he was found in possession of the subject
firearms and determined to be without any authority to possess them, an essential
ingredient of the offense, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was perpetrated and
completed in no other place except the Philippines.

Moreover, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information. In this case, the information specifically and
categorically alleged that on or about January 30, 1996 petitioner was in possession,
custody and control of the subject firearms at
the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Pasay City, Philippines, certainly a territory
within the jurisdiction of the trial court.

In contrast, petitioner failed to establish by sufficient and competent evidence that the
present charge happened in Dubai. It may be well to recall that while in Dubai, petitioner,
even in a situation between life and death, firmly denied possession and ownership of the
firearms. Furthermore, there is no record of any criminal case having been filed against
petitioner in Dubai in connection with the discovered firearms. Since there is no pending
criminal case when he left Dubai, it stands to reason that there was no crime committed
in Dubai. The age-old but familiar rule that he who alleges must prove his allegation
applies.[31]
Petitioner finally laments the trial courts denial of the Motion to Withdraw Information
filed by the investigating prosecutor due to the latters finding of lack of probable cause to
indict him. He argues that such denial effectively deprived him of his substantive right to
a preliminary investigation.

Still, petitioners argument fails to persuade. There is nothing procedurally improper on

the part of the trial court in disregarding the result of the preliminary investigation it itself
ordered.Judicial action on the motion rests in the sound exercise of judicial discretion. In
denying the motion, the trial court just followed the jurisprudential rule laid down
in Crespo v. Judge Mogul[32] that once a complaint or information is filed in court, any
disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests
on the sound discretion of the court. The court is not dutifully bound by such finding of
the investigating prosecutor. In Solar Team Entertainment, Inc v. Judge How[33] we held:

It bears stressing that the court is however not bound to adopt the resolution of
the Secretary of Justice since the court is mandated to independently evaluate
or assess the merits of the case, and may either agree or disagree with the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Reliance alone on the resolution
of the Secretary of Justice would be an abdication of the trial courts duty and
jurisdiction to determine prima facie case.

Consequently, petitioner has no valid basis to insist on the trial court to respect the result
of the preliminary investigation it ordered to be conducted.

In fine, we find no reason not to uphold petitioners conviction. The records substantiate
the RTC and CAs finding that petitioner possessed, albeit constructively, the subject
firearms and ammunition when he arrived in the Philippines on January 30,
1996. Moreover, no significant facts and circumstances were shown to have been
overlooked or disregarded which if considered would have altered the outcome of the
case.

In the prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, the
Court has reiterated the essential elements in People v. Eling[34] to wit: (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.

In the instant case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the
crime. The existence of the subject firearms and the ammunition were established
through the testimony of Acierto. Their existence was likewise admitted by petitioner
when he entered into stipulation and through his subsequent judicial
admission. Concerning petitioners lack of authority to possess the firearms, SPO4
Bondoc, Jr. testified that upon verification, it was ascertained that the name of petitioner
does not appear in the list of registered firearm holders or a registered owner thereof. As
proof, he submitted a certification to that effect and identified the same in court. The
testimony of SPO4 Bondoc, Jr. or the certification from the FEO would suffice to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the second element.[35]
A final point. Republic Act (RA) No. 8294[36] took effect on June 6, 1997 or after the
commission of the crime on January 30, 1996. However, since it is advantageous to the
petitioner, it should be given retrospective application insofar as the penalty is concerned.

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. x x x

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.
Prision mayor in its minimum period ranges from six years and one day to eight
years. Hence, the penalty imposed by the RTC as affirmed by the CA is proper.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR No. 21805 affirming the January 23, 1998 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Pasay City, Branch 109 dated January 23, 1998, convicting petitioner Teofilo
Evangelista of violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six years and one day to eight
years and to pay a fine of P30,000.00 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.