THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246357. September 23, 2020.]
RICARDO ALHAMBRA y YBANEZ, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 23, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246357 (Ricardo Alhambra y Ybanez v. People of the Philippines). — Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated September 28, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40277, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated June 28, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 21 in Criminal Case No. 16-323929 finding Ricardo Alhambra y Ybañez (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Firearms punishable under Section 28 (a), in relation to Section 28 (e-1) of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 10591. 4
Facts of the Case
Petitioner was charged in an Information 5 for violation of Section 28 (a), in relation to Section 28 (e) (1) of R.A. 10591, to wit:
That on or about March 2, 2016 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control One (1) Star (Modelo Super) Cal .38 with Serial No. 308454 marked as "RYA" loaded with ONE (1) live ammunition marked as "RYA-1," and a magazine marked as "RYA-3" to "RYA-5" loaded with THREE (3) live ammunitions, without first having secured the necessary license or permit from the proper authorities.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. 7 When pre-trial was conducted, the following stipulations and admissions were made:
1. petitioner is the same Ricardo Alhambra as charged in the Information;
2. the Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the case;
3. petitioner was subjected to custodial investigation, referred to the inquest, and as a result thereof, the case was filed in the Court;
4. PO2 Ariel Codon (PO2 Codon) is a police officer assigned at Sampaloc Police Station (PS-4), the investigator-on-case, and was on duty at the time of the investigation of this case;
5. PO2 Codon can identify petitioner;
6. In the course of the investigation, PO2 Codon prepared the following documents: Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, Affidavit of the Investigator, Request for Verification, Request for Laboratory Examination, and photograph of the recovered evidence, marked as Exhibits "A to A-5," "B," "C to C-1," "D," "E," and "F to F-1," respectively;
7. PO2 Codon has no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused; and
8. PO2 Codon has no personal knowledge as to the direct source of the evidence submitted to him. 8
Version of the Prosecution
To dispense with the testimony of SPO2 Angelito Hernandez, the parties entered into the following stipulations:
1. SPO2 Angelito Hernandez is a duly appointed police officer of the Manila Police District assigned at Police Station 4, Sampaloc, Manila;
2. he is the Evidence Custodian of the pieces of object evidence subject of this case described as one Star (Modelo Super) caliber .38 with Serial No. 308454 marked as "RYA" loaded with one live ammunition marked as "RYA-2" and a magazine marked as "RYA-1" loaded with three live ammunitions marked as "RYA-3," "RYA-4," and "RYA-5";
3. SPO2 Hernandez can identify the pieces of object evidence;
4. he received the pieces of evidence from the investigator-on-case;
5. he has no personal knowledge of the facts surrounding the arrest of the accused;
6. he has no personal knowledge as to the direct source of the evidence presented. 9
On March 2, 2016 at around 12:00 p.m., PO1 Jessie Ruallo (PO1 Ruallo) with other police officers were conducting a patrol when they were tasked to serve a Warrant of Arrest 10 for violation of Presidential Decree No. (P.D.) 1602 11 against petitioner. Upon arrival at the house of petitioner, PO1 Paul Richard Guinto (PO1 Guinto), noticed that the door of the house was partly open, which was clear enough to see that petitioner was in possession of illegal drugs suspected to be shabu. PO1 Guinto went inside the house followed by PO1 Ruallo and PO1 Steve Ico (PO1 Ico). 12
PO1 Guinto introduced himself as police officer and served the Warrant of Arrest to petitioner. PO1 Guinto informed petitioner of his rights, confiscated the illegal drugs with rolled aluminum strips and handcuffed him. 13
As a standard operating procedure, and since PO1 Ruallo noticed something bulging on petitioner's waist, PO1 Ruallo frisked petitioner. PO1 Ruallo found, tucked in the waist of petitioner, a hand gun Star (Modelo Super) .38 caliber bearing Serial No. 308454 loaded with one live ammunition and a magazine loaded with three live ammunitions. PO1 Ruallo stated that at the time of the frisking, petitioner was in a standing position and wearing a white t-shirt and shorts. 14
After confiscating the gun and effecting the arrest of petitioner, the arresting team brought petitioner to the Ospital ng Sampaloc for medical examination. 15 Thereafter, they went to the police station where PO1 Ruallo turned over petitioner to the investigator, PO2 Codon. PO1 Ruallo then handed over the seized gun and live ammunitions to PO2 Codon. Thereafter, PO1 Ruallo marked the .38 caliber gun with "RYA," petitioner's initial. The one live ammunition was marked as "RYA-2" and a magazine marked as "RYA-1" loaded with three live ammunitions marked as "RYA-3," "RYA-4," and "RYA-5." 16 PO1 Ruallo claimed that the marking of the recovered items was made at the police station because the place of the arrest was so crowded. The marking was made in the presence of petitioner, investigator PO2 Codon, and PO1 Guinto. As testified by PO1 Ruallo, the police officers did not execute any inventory of all the seized items. 17
PO1 Steve Ico (PO1 Ico) corroborated the testimony of PO1 Ruallo. 18
Thereafter, the parties stipulated as to the existence of the Certification from the Firearms and Explosive Office that petitioner had no license to possess a firearm. 19
Version of the Defense
Petitioner claimed that on March 2, 2016, while he was tending to his two infant children, policemen in uniforms suddenly entered his house without his permission. Petitioner was ordered to lie face down. Petitioner was able to recognize SPO2 Jordan Villanueva and a certain "Sir Carandang." Petitioner alleged that the police officers were armed with a search warrant in connection with his robbery case in 2005, which was provisionally dismissed by the court. Thereafter, he was brought inside a van where he was asked whether someone will help him arrange his release. 20
The police officers then asked the same question when they brought petitioner to the police station. When the petitioner told them that he has no money, the police officers uttered "tuluyan.'' Thereafter, a caliber .38 gun was shown to him. The police officers then told him that the said gun would be the subject of the criminal charge that he would be facing. 21
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On June 28, 2017, the RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms penalized under Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e) (1) of R.A. No. 10591. The court found that the prosecution was able to prove the existence of the subject firearm and that petitioner has no license or permit to possess the same. 22 Thus:
WHEREFORE, accused RICARDO ALHAMBRA y YBANEZ is hereby declared GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28(e-1) of Republic Act No. 10591 docketed as Criminal Case No. 16-323929 and there being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance that has been established, accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 10 years, 8 months and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum.
The confiscated one (1) handgun Star (Modelo Super) bearing serial number 308454 caliber .38 marked as "RYA" loaded with one (1) .38 caliber live ammunition marked as "RYA-2" and a magazine marked as "RYA-1" inserted on the said gun loaded with three (3) .38 caliber live ammunitions marked as "RYA-3," "RYA-4" and "RYA-5" are hereby declared forfeited in favor of the Government and upon finality of this Decision, the Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is directed to turn over the same to the Director, PNP Camp Crame, Quezon City for disposition in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 23
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On September 28, 2018, the CA affirmed in toto the ruling of the RTC, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated June 28, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 21 in Criminal Case No. 16-323929 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 24
Petitioner's Arguments
Petitioner argued that there are material inconsistencies in the testimony of PO1 Ruallo as to the description of the gun. Petitioner claimed that the testimony of PO1 Ruallo stated that the color of the gun was "parang lumang silver," but in truth, it was black, as depicted in the picture marked as Exhibit "F" 25 of the prosecution. Also, when PO1 Ruallo stated that the gun has no brand, the same is inconsistent with the Information where it was clearly stated that the brand was Star Modelo Super. As such, there is a doubt as to the identity and existence of the gun. Further, petitioner claimed that PO1 Ruallo only marked the subject items after he turned over the same to PO2 Codon at the police station. 26
Petitioner also argued that Department of Justice (DOJ) Department Circular No. 067, series of 2013, provides a guideline to be observed in handling seized illegal firearms, in that: (1) the recovered firearms are physically inventoried, checked and accounted for; (2) pictures and stencil of the subject firearm/s are submitted by the duly authorized personnel of the PNP Crime Laboratory and attached to the record of the case; (3) the recovered firearm/s are duly safeguarded by the law enforcer and the chain of custody is properly recorded; (4) the recovered firearm/s be properly deposited by the police investigator with the police evidence custodian; and (5) the PNP officials submit an affidavit of undertaking stating among others that he/she will take the obligation of presenting the subject firearm when the prosecutor or the judge deems it necessary. 27
Petitioner claimed that the evidence of the prosecution does not include a duly recorded chain of custody of the subject firearm and ammunitions. Also, while PO1 Ruallo claimed that there was an inventory, the prosecution failed to formally offer said inventory. 28
Petitioner also argued that the Certification from the Firearms and Explosives Office was issued after the criminal case has been filed contrary to DOJ Department Circular No. 067 which states that the Certification is the sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of a criminal case for illegal possession of firearms. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the criminal case, there was no probable cause for the filing of the same. 29
Office of the Solicitor General's Arguments
The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the inconsistency in the appearance of the firearm should not merit petitioner's acquittal. Regardless of the recollection of PO1 Ruallo, it still proved that petitioner was in possession of the subject firearm and that upon verification, he did not have any license to possess the same. 30 The police officers positively identified petitioner as the one in possession of the firearm and such positive identification should prevail over insignificant details such as the discrepancy in the description of the subject firearm. 31
Issue
Whether petitioner is guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms punishable under Section 28 (a), in relation to Section 28 (e-1) of R.A. 10591.
Ruling of the Court
At the outset, it is a constitutionally-guaranteed right that an accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. 32 For the accused to be convicted, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, which produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 33 In proving the guilt of the accused, the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence rather than capitalize on the weakness of the evidence of the defense. 34
To sustain a conviction for illegal possession of firearms, the prosecution must prove the following essential requisites: (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 to possess the same. 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. 35
After a perusal of the records of the case, it is shown that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of petitioner for the crime charged.
Here, petitioner claimed that the identity of the confiscated gun has not been established by the prosecution. It alleged that there is no inventory that was conducted in contravention with DOJ Circular No. 067. Be it noted that the said circular is entitled Additional Guidelines in the Disposition of Inquest Cases Involving Violations of P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294. It is only addressed to prosecutors, since some of the prosecutors have asked for the custody of the recovered firearms which prevents the police from conducting ballistic tests. Nevertheless, a perusal of the DOJ circular does not provide for a strict procedure or a mandatory procedure that an inventory and seizure receipt of confiscated items must be presented in court to establish the identity of the firearm.
The issue as to the color of the gun is no longer of consequence since the actual firearm and its ammunitions were presented in court. The trial court was given the unique position to see firsthand the confiscated firearm. Any seeming discrepancy as to the color of confiscated firearm cannot be seen by this Court especially since what was attached in the records of this case is merely a photocopy of the photograph of recovered evidence. The photocopy cannot show the accurate depiction or contrast of color of the recovered evidence. Further, petitioner claimed that during the direct testimony of PO1 Ruallo, when the latter was asked if the confiscated firearm had a brand, he answered that it had no brand 36 even though it was stated in the Information and the Affidavit of the arresting officers that the confiscated firearm had a brand, i.e., Star Modelo Super .38 caliber creates doubt as to the identity of the confiscated firearm.
To note, when PO1 Ruallo was confronted with the confiscated firearm in open court, he positively identified and pointed 37 at the firearm with markings "RYA," marked by the prosecution as Exhibit "G," as the same firearm he confiscated from petitioner and as the same firearm he marked at the police station. Settled is the principle that inconsistent statements on minor details does not diminish the evidentiary value of the evidence and does not destroy the credibility of the witness. Further, it is to be noted that the prosecution stipulated and the defense admitted the following: (1) photographs of the confiscated items; (2) that is a hand gun Star Modelo Super caliber .38 bearing a Serial No. 308454 marked as "RYA" loaded with one live ammunition marked as "RYA-2" and a magazine marked as "RYA-1" loaded with three live ammunitions marked as "RYA-3," "RYA-4," and "RYA-5" were received by the Evidence Custodian, SPO2 Hernandez from PO2 Codon.
PO1 Ruallo testified that upon the arrest of petitioner, he saw something bulging in the waist of petitioner, thus after frisking petitioner, he confiscated the gun, the magazine and the live ammunitions. Because the place of the arrest was crowded, they brought petitioner and the confiscated items to the police station. According to PO1 Ico, the police station was merely 5 to 10 minutes away from the place of the arrest. In the police station, PO1 Ruallo marked the confiscated items and thereafter turned over the same to PO2 Codon. PO2 Codon, in turn, turned over the same to the evidence custodian, SPO2 Hernandez. Thus, chain of custody of the firearm was preserved. It is settled that marking of seized items also contemplates marking at the nearest police station. The integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated firearm and its ammunitions is therefore preserved.
PO1 Ruallo, PO1 Ico, PO2 Codon and SPO2 Hernandez are police officers. As such, they have in their favor a presumption of regularity. In this case, aside from the self-serving allegation of petitioner of planting of evidence, nothing in the records would show that the said police officers are motivated by ill will.
It is also established that petitioner had no license to possess a firearm as evidenced by the Certification from the Firearms and Explosives Office dated July 15, 2016. 38 As to the intent to possess or animus possidendi, the same was established by the prosecution. To reiterate, the confiscated gun was recovered tucked in the right waist of petitioner. Thus, he consciously possessed the same. As all the elements of the crime of Illegal possession of firearm has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, his conviction therefore must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated September 28, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40277 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SOORDERED." (ZALAMEDA, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-25.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon M. Baro, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz; id. at 31-37.
3. Penned by Judge Alma Crispina B. Collado-Lacorte; id. at 57-65.
4. Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunitions."
5. Records, p. 1.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 51.
8.Id. at 60.
9.Rollo, p. 58.
10. Records, p. 15.
11. Prescribing Stricter Penalties on Illegal Gambling.
12.Rollo, p. 59.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15. TSN dated June 9, 2016, p. 10.
16.Id. at 10-11.
17.Id. at 17.
18.Rollo, p. 59.
19.Id. at 60.
20. TSN dated May 24, 2017, pp. 3-4.
21. TSN dated May 3, 2017, pp. 2-3.
22.Rollo, pp. 62-63.
23.Id. at 64-65.
24.Id. at 36.
25. Records, p. 12.
26.Rollo, pp. 48-49.
27.Id. at 52.
28.Id.
29.Id. at 53-54.
30.Id at 73, 77.
31.Id. at 79.
32. CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 14 (2).
33. REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 133, Sec. 2.
34.De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. 240475, July 24, 2019.
35.Jacaban v. People, 756 Phil. 532 (2015).
36. TSN dated June 9, 2016, p. 9.
37.Id. at 12.
38. Records, p. 71.