THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232521. November 20, 2017.]
JOEDERICK D. AÑANA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 20, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232521 (Joederick D. Añana vs. People of the Philippines). — This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision 1 dated May 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 01306-MIN, which affirmed in toto the Decision 2 dated March 16, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Panabo City, which, in turn, affirmed the Decision 3 dated May 30, 2014 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Panabo City finding the herein petitioner Joederick D. Añana (Añana) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearm.
The petitioner was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm in Violation of Paragraph 1, Section 1 4 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1886, 5 as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 8294 6 in relation to RA No. 8369 or the "Family Courts Act of 1997," in an Information that reads:
That on or about July 26, 2009, in Panabo City, Davao, Philippines, which is within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [herein petitioner], without first obtaining the license required by law, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly had in his possession, control and custody, one (1) unit of .38 caliber revolver with serial number 1772695 loaded with five (5) live ammunitions, which he was holding in plain view in a public place. 7 (Emphases supplied.)
When arraigned, the petitioner pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charge. 8 After the pre-trial conference, trial on the merits ensued, where both the prosecution and the defense presented and submitted their respective evidence.
At the trial, the prosecution presented Police Officer 3 Jerome P. Maramba (PO3 Maramba) as its lone witness 9 while the defense presented the petitioner and his co-accused Louie Aprosta (Aprosta). 10
The prosecution's version of the facts is summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which the CA adopted, as follows:
At around 12:55 o'clock in the afternoon of July 26, 2009, a group of armed men composed of [herein petitioner], Michael Schmitz, Louie Aprosta, Jomar Neniel and an unidentified person were spotted on board two motorcycles at Brgy. Cagangohan, Panabo City. This sighting was relayed to all police units through radio, and it was [PO3 Maramba], a member of the Philippine National Police [PNP] Panabo City — Office of the Intelligence Operatives, and his group who immediately responded. While traversing the vicinity of the Bayside View Area, PO3 Maramba and his group heard gunshots nearby. [PO3] Maramba saw [petitioner] and the other members of the armed group shooting at other police officers. PO3 Maramba and his group then moved closer to the armed group and when they were about ten (10) to fifteen (15) meters away, PO3 Maramba asked them to surrender and lay down their firearms. Only four members of the armed group were apprehended, one of whom was the [petitioner]. Four (4) firearms were recovered including the .38 caliber revolver with five (5) live ammunition[s] in the possession of [petitioner]. 11
The petitioner, on the other hand, offered a different version of the story, thus:
Louie Aprosta (Louie) and the petitioner testified for the defense. According to them, at around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Louie went to [herein petitioner's] house to invite him to attend his compadre's birthday.
On board a motorcycle and while on their way to Louie's compadre, they passed by Bayside View. The two (2) noticed that there were plenty of people gathering in the place. Out of curiosity, they stopped and asked what it was all about.
While observing what was going on, the petitioner was shocked and surprised that a gun was pointed at him. He was commanded to drop down and face the ground. While on the ground, the arresting officers stepped on the petitioner's face while his body was being searched.
Despite the fact that no illegal items were found from the petitioner, he was still brought to the police station and was made to answer this baseless accusation. 12 (Italics supplied.)
On May 30, 2014, the MTCC promulgated its Decision convicting the petitioner of the crime charged and sentencing him as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of the [herein petitioner] having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years[,] eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as minimum to four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days also of prision correccional as maximum and to pay a fine of P15,000.00[.]
The subject .38 caliber and five (5) live ammunitions are hereby ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government pursuant to Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code. 13 (Emphases partly in the original and partly supplied; italics supplied.)
The petitioner appealed his conviction before the RTC but the latter in a Decision dated March 16, 2015 affirmed the same. The petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied in an Order 14 dated May 8, 2015.
The petitioner elevated his case to the CA via a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. On May 31, 2017, the CA rendered its now assailed Decision affirming in toto the RTC Decision dated March 16, 2015 convicting the petitioner of the crime charged. The CA emphasized that the RTC did not err in giving credence to PO3 Maramba's testimony and that the prosecution ably proved the corpus delicti of the offense.
Hence, this Petition arguing in the main that the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision convicting the petitioner of illegal possession of firearm despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as the lone prosecution witness was incompetent to identify the gun presented in court and the latter's testimony is unworthy of credence due to several material inconsistencies and contradictions which ultimately destroyed his credibility. 15
This Court finds no merit in this petition.
The petitioner's arguments hinge on the credibility of PO3 Maramba, the lone prosecution witness. Settled is the rule that in criminal prosecutions on the matter of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court are given weight and the highest degree of respect by appellate courts because the former is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. 16 Here, this Court finds no strong and cogent reason to depart from this established rule.
To note, the CA, the RTC and the MTCC are in unison that the testimony of PO3 Maramba is credible. Also, PO3 Maramba positively identified the petitioner as one of the members of the armed group whom they apprehended for possessing an unlicensed firearm. There was likewise no showing that PO3 Maramba was prompted by any ill-motive against the petitioner. As against this positive identification, the petitioner could only muster the defenses of denial and alibi, which are inherently weak defenses and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness. 17 Moreover, positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter prevails over a denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. 18 In this case, the petitioner's defense of denial may be regarded as merely self-serving for being unsubstantiated by any clear and convincing evidence, hence, crumbles in light of his positive identification by PO3 Maramba.
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. 19 The corpus delicti thereof is the accused's lack of license or permit to possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited by law. 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. 20 In the present case, it is beyond any cavil of doubt that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of illegal possession of firearm. PO3 Maramba's testimony before the court a quo clearly established the existence of the firearm and the fact that the petitioner has no corresponding license or permit to possess or carry the same. In relation to this, the Court quotes with approval the following disquistion of the MTCC:
In the present case, the prosecution was able to show and prove all the essential elements that constitute the crime charged against the [herein petitioner]. The testimony of the prosecution witness [PO3 Maramba] was clear and straightforward in his recount of how the .38 revolver and five (5) live ammunition were lawfully recovered from [petitioner's] possession in plain view of the arresting officer. He has thereafter presented and identified the same in open court.
Anent the lack of authority, upon verification by the PNP Panabo City, it was ascertained that [petitioner] is not a duly licensed/registered firearm holder of any type, kind, or caliber of firearms. To substantiate this information, a certification by the Firearms and Explosives Division of the Philippine National Police to that effect was submitted and identified in court. The certification would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt x x x that the [petitioner] has no license or permit to possess the abovementioned firearm. 21
As to the alleged inconsistencies in PO3 Maramba's testimony, the same could not in any way diminish his credibility. As succinctly explained by the CA:
x x x the perceived contradictions in the testimony of PO3 Maramba merely refer to minor matters that do not touch on the commission of the crime itself and do not affect the substance of his declaration, the veracity or the weight of his testimony. x x x Although there may be inconsistencies in minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses, where, as in this case, there is no inconsistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of [herein petitioner]. x x x
In fact, an assiduous examination of PO3 Maramba's testimony reveals that [petitioner's] claim of inconsistency are inaccurate and misleading. Contrary to [petitioner's] claim, it does not appear from the record that PO3 Maramba contradicted himself on cross-examination by stating that a single officer seized all four of the recovered firearms. Rather, it appears that PO3 Maramba was stating that the same officer who recovered each firearm brought the same to the investigator at the police station x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
Likewise, contrary to [petitioner's] claim, it does not appear from the record that PO3 Maramba contradicted himself by stating that the firearms were in the possession of Jocxon Caballero [Caballero]. Instead, it appears that PO3 Maramba was discussing the recovery of the firearm by [Caballero] from the co-accused Michael Schmitz x x x. 22
In sum, finding no reversible error in the findings and conclusions of the CA, which are an affirmance of those of the RTC and the MTCC, this Court has no reason to rule otherwise.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed CA Decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Ronaldo B. Martin, concurring, rollo, pp. 41-56.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, id. at 82-86.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Andrea Asistido-Dela Cruz, id. at 98-103.
4.Section 1. Sec. 1 Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
Sec. 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. (Emphases and italics supplied.)
5. A Decree "CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION, OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES."
6. Known as "AN ACT AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED 'CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES.'"
7.Rollo, p. 97.
8. CA Decision dated May 31, 2017, id. at 43; MTCC Decision dated May 30, 2014, id. at 98.
9. The prosecution was supposed to present a representative of the Firearms and Explosives Division (FED) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) to testify whether the petitioner was authorized to carry a firearm but the said officer failed to appear. The defense counsel then stipulated as to the existence and due execution of the Certification from FED. Jocxon Caballero was also one of the witnesses to be presented by the prosecution. Unfortunately, he died during trial. See MTCC Decision dated May 30, 2014, id. at 98-99, 102.
10. CA Decision dated May 31, 2017, id. at 43-44.
11.Id. at 43.
12.Id. at 44.
13. MTCC Decision dated May 30, 2014, id. at 103.
14.Id. at 93.
15. Petition for Review on Certiorari dated August 2, 2017, id. at 21.
16.People v. Trigo, G.R. No. 74515, June 14, 1989.
17.People v. Piosang, G.R. No. 200329, June 5, 2013.
18.Id., citing People v. Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October 11, 2011, 658 SCRA 842, 847.
19.Jacaban v. People, G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015.
20.Sayco v. People, G.R. No. 159703, March 3, 2008.
21. MTCC Decision dated May 30, 2014, rollo, p. 101.
22. CA Decision dated May 31, 2017, id. at 52-53.