FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 157700. June 5, 2013.]
GODOFREDO CASTRO Y PAGUIRIGAN, accused-petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 5, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 157700 — GODOFREDO CASTRO y PAGUIRIGAN, Accused-Petitioner v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Respondent.
Accused Godofredo Castro y Paguirigan appeals the decision promulgated on November 22, 2002, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the February 22, 1995 decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, in Laoag City (RTC) finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 1, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as amended. 2
In the information dated August 14, 1993, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Ilocos Norte charged petitioner with the illegal possession of a caliber .38 (paltik) handgun committed in violation of P.D. No. 1866. He pleaded not guilty to the information.
The Prosecution presented Rosito Corpuz (Rosito), SPO4 Vicente Duldulao (SPO4 Duldulao) and SPO1 Danilo Bringas (SPO1 Bringas) to establish the following. aIDHET
On August 13, 1993, around 3:00 in the afternoon, petitioner went up to Rosito who was then with his son plowing their riceland in Barangay 16, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. He then accused Rosito of usurping the riceland that he had been tilling. He also promptly pointed a gun at Rosito, and threatened to kill the latter. After Rosito pacified him, petitioner ordered Rosito to buy a bottle of gin for them to settle their differences while drinking. Instead of buying the bottle of gin, Rosito went straight to the San Nicolas Police Station to report the incident. Although his report was entered in the police blotter, the policemen did not immediately respond to his report, prompting him to go back to the police station 20 minutes later to inform the station that petitioner was still in the riceland. With that, SPO4 Duldulao, SPO1 Bringas, SPO2 Nestor Tolentino accompanied Rosito to the riceland. SPO1 Fidel Domingo and SPO2 Mario Baltazar joined them. Arriving at the Riceland, Rosito indicated petitioner to the officers. Petitioner was then sitting on a rice paddy about 100 meters away. To ensure that petitioner would not escape, the officers broke into two groups. The first group, which included SPO4 Duldulao, SPO1 Domingo and SPO2 Baltazar, hid behind a cluster of bamboo trees to the west and rear of petitioner, while the other group of SPO1 Bringas and SPO2 Tolentino approached petitioner directly from the east. As soon as petitioner recognized SPO1 Bringas and SPO2 Tolentino as policemen, he ran towards the direction of the first group, which quickly emerged from behind the cluster of bamboo trees once petitioner was only 25 meters away from them. The officers trained their firearms at petitioner and told him to drop his handgun. He complied, and sat down. SPO4 Duldulao picked up the handgun. The officers arrested him, and brought him to the police station for investigation.
During the investigation, SPO1 Bringas placed two "X" marks on the sides of the hammer, and another "X" mark on the underside of the barrel of the handgun confiscated from petitioner. The officers next brought him to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office for inquest.
During the November 24, 1993 hearing, the defense counsel admitted that petitioner was not a licensed firearm holder. EHTSCD
Petitioner rendered his own version of the events that transpired on August 13, 1993. He stated that someone had informed him that Rosito was plowing the riceland on which he had been the tenant; that he had found Rosito there after the latter had just completed his plowing; that he had naturally confronted Rosito, who angrily replied that the landowner had already installed him as the new tenant; that he had thus retorted that Rosito could not have talked to the landowner because the latter had been in Hawaii all along, but Rosito had insisted otherwise; that he had then suggested to Rosito that the latter should buy a bottle of gin so that they could then settle their problem while drinking gin; that Rosito had agreed to his suggestion and left; that because Rosito had not returned after an hour, he himself had bought the bottle of gin; that finding upon his return to the riceland that Rosito had still not returned, he had waited for Rosito under a duhat tree, where he had been soon joined by Carlito Pablo, who was farming the nearby riceland; that the two of them had started to drink gin; that several policemen bearing armalite rifles had suddenly appeared at the place firing warning shots; that the policemen had then invited him and Pablo to go to the police station; that at the station, the policemen had showed to him a handgun, and had wanted him to sign a statement that he owned the handgun; that because he had then refused to comply, one of the policemen had hit him in the stomach with an armalite rifle; and that he had nonetheless denied owning the handgun, and that it had been confiscated from him.
The Defense presented Pablo as the other witness. He corroborated petitioner's version about their drinking gin under the duhat tree when the policemen accosted them; and insisted that he did not then see any handgun being confiscated from petitioner.
On February 22, 1995, the RTC declared petitioner guilty as charged, and sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term ranging from 17 years, four months and one day, as minimum, to 20 years as maximum. 3
On appeal to the CA, petitioner contended that the lack of a license or permit to possess the firearm constituted an essential ingredient of the offense, but the State had failed to present evidence thereon through testimony of any representative from the Firearms and Explosives Office, or a certification from that office attesting to the fact that he had no license or permit to possess the firearm alleged in the information. ICacDE
In the decision promulgated on February 22, 1995, the CA rejected petitioner's contention, and ruled that the State did not have to present any representative from the Firearms and Explosives Office, or a certification from that office, because his counsel had admitted in court that petitioner had not been issued any license or permit to carry a firearm; hence, his guilt for illegal possession of firearm was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Nonetheless, the CA reduced his prison term to four years and two months, as minimum, to six years, as maximum, and prescribed a fine of P15,000.00 in view of the intervening passage of Republic Act No. 8294 that lowered the penalty for illegal possession of a firearm. 4
In this appeal, petitioner raises the sole issue of:
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATION THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [DESPITE] THE FACT THAT THE SAME DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 5
Petitioner contends that the State did not establish the elements of the crime of illegal possession of firearm, considering that although the State presented the firearm alleged in the information, it did not prove that the firearm had belonged to him; that he had seen the firearm for the first time only at the police station; that the State did not prove either his possession of the firearm, or his intent to possess it; that the CA erred in holding that the second element of the crime, that is, that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess, need not be proved; that the non-possession of a license, being a negative fact, should be alleged by the State and proved beyond reasonable doubt; that the absence of the license to possess the firearm should then be established through the testimony of a representative of the Firearms and Explosives Bureau, or a certification from that office to the effect that the accused was not the licensee for the possession of any firearm. CAIHaE
We affirm the conviction.
The elements constituting the offense of illegal possession of a firearm are: (a) the existence of the firearm; and (b) the fact that the accused who possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license for it. 6 The State proved beyond reasonable doubt the concurrence of these elements.
As to the first element, the State presented the firearm alleged in the information (Exhibit A). Petitioner's denial of ownership or possession of the firearm, and his assertion of seeing the firearm for the first time only at the police station did not prevail over the positive testimonies of Rosito and the arresting officers to the effect that petitioner had actually possessed the firearm that had been recovered from him. As always, the Court regards the denial as weak self-serving evidence that was not entitled to greater credence than the positive declarations given by credible witnesses. 7
The second element was also established. We agree with the CA that the presentation of the representative of the Firearms and Explosives Bureau, or the certification from that office to the effect that the accused was not the licensee for the possession of any firearm was rendered superfluous and unnecessary by the admission in court on November 24, 1993 by petitioner's counsel that petitioner had not been issued any permit to carry any firearm. 8 Such judicial admission, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, concluded the party making it, unless the party first showed either that the admission was made through palpable mistake, or that no such admission was in fact made. 9 Considering that petitioner neither averred nor showed that the admission by his counsel had been made through palpable mistake, or that the admission had not been made, the admission that he was not a licensed firearm holder conclusively established the existence of the second element of the crime. cSTHaE
The crime was committed during the effectivity of P.D. No. 1866, under which simple illegal possession of firearms was punished with reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. With the intervening effectivity of R.A. No. 8294, however, the penalty was reduced to prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than P15,000.00. With the penalty provided by R.A. No. 8294 being lower and naturally beneficial to petitioner, we uphold the CA in retroactively applying it to petitioner. 10 Accordingly, the indeterminate sentence of four years and two months, as minimum, to six years, and a fine of P15,000.00 imposed by the CA is proper, considering that prision correccional in its maximum period ranges from four years, two months and one day to six years.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on November 22, 2002; and ORDERS petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 70-76; penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico (retired), with Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong (retired/deceased) concurring.
2.Id. at 31-43.
3.Id. at 42-43.
4.Id. at 76.
5.Id. at 17.
6.Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 190889, January 10, 2011, 639 SCRA 194, 217; Evangelista v. People, G.R. No. 163267, May 5, 2010, 620 SCRA 134, 149; People v. Eling, G.R. No. 178546, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 724, 738; Advincula v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131144, October 18, 2000, 343 SCRA 583, 588-589.
7.People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 146464-67, November 15, 2002, 391 SCRA 718, 730.
8.Rollo, p. 34.
9.See also Atillo III v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119053, January 23, 1997, 266 SCRA 596, 602.
10.People v. Avecilla, G.R. No. 117033, February 15, 2001, 351 SCRA 635, 641.