FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206573. July 4, 2018.]
BENJAMIN CENTENO y CORTEZ A.K.A. HERNANDO B. ROXAS ALIAS "JUNJUN," DIONISIO ESPINA1 y SUPERIOR A.K.A. GEORGE GARCIA y SURALDE ALIAS "GEORGE," ARMANDO DEHINO y LANDERO A.K.A. ROLANDO PAYUMO y NOYA ALIAS "DONDON" OR "POPOY," EDGAR CAYANAN y ACEDERA A.K.A. EDWIN LOPEZ y CRUZ, EDGAR AFICIAL, JUNJUN VILLANUEVA ALIAS "EDGAR" "EDZ" OR "JUNJUN, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 4, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 206573 — Benjamin Centeno y Cortez a.k.a. Hernando B. Roxas alias "Junjun," Dionisio Espinay Superior a.k.a. George Garcia y Suralde alias "George," Armando Dehino y Landero a.k.a. Rolando Payumo y Noya alias "Dondon" or "Popoy," Edgar Cayanan y Acedera a.k.a. Edwin Lopez y Cruz, Edgar Aficial, Junjun Villanueva alias "Edgar" "Edz" or "Junjun, petitioners, v. People of the Philippines, respondent.
Acting on the Petition for Review on Certiorari and after a thorough review of the allegations, issues and arguments raised therein, the Court resolves to DENY the same for: (1) raising factual issues; and (2) failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its January 18, 2013 Decision and March 22, 2013 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 34527. AScHCD
It is well established that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the CA is limited to reviewing errors of law, the findings of facts of the appellate court being conclusive. In the present case, petitioners would have this Court review the circumstances surrounding their warrantless arrest and the resulting search and seizure of the firearms and ammunitions found in their possession. They contend that they were not committing any crime in the presence of the police officers and neither did the latter have personal knowledge of facts indicating that they had committed, were committing, or about to commit an offense. They insist that they were just inside the parked vehicle and were not acting suspiciously that would engender a reasonable ground for the police officers to suspect and conclude that they were committing or intending to commit a crime. They further assert that since their arrest was illegal, the confiscation of the firearms and ammunitions was likewise illegal and therefore inadmissible in evidence. Lastly, they disagree with the conclusion that the warrantless search and seizure of the evidence involved a "stop and frisk" situation.
While the issues raised may seem to partake of questions of law, nevertheless, their resolution inevitably requires the Court to resolve the underlying issue of whether or not evidence exists to hold petitioners liable for the crime. In phrasing the issues in this Petition, petitioners urge this Court to revisit the case and scrutinize the evidence on record thus necessitating a review of the factual findings of the courts below. Notably, there were no conflicting factual conclusions of the trial court and the appellate court. Well-settled in our jurisprudence is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts 2 and that it is neither the function of this Court to analyze and weigh the evidence of the parties all over again. 3
In any event, even if this Court evaluates petitioners' arguments on the merits, it still finds no compelling reason to disturb the findings as well as the conclusions of the courts below on the basis of the records of this case. HESIcT
As established, the police officers were provided prior information that an armed group of alias "Dondon" would stage a robbery hold-up at the ABC Complex, Guadalupe, Makati City. The group will be on board a gray Toyota Corolla bearing plate no. USY-856. Once the officers spotted the car fitting the description given by the confidential agent and saw alias "Dondon" alighting from the same, the latter was arrested. Thereupon, the officers secured the immediate vicinity of the car and saw petitioners inside in possession of firearms. These circumstances engendered reasonable belief on the part of the police authorities that the planned robbery hold-up was about to be committed. Such being the case, there was a valid warrantless search and consequently, the firearms and ammunitions found in petitioners' possession were admissible in evidence against them.
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions, the essential elements 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." 4 All the foregoing elements were duly established in this case. The existence of the subject firearms and the ammunitions was established through the testimonies of the apprehending officers. Concerning petitioners' lack of authority to possess the firearms, Police Senior Inspector Roland Callejo (PSI Callejo) testified, that upon verification, it was ascertained that Dionisio Espina y Superior (Espina), petitioners Benjamin Centeno y Cortes (Centeno) and Armando Dehino y Landero (Dehino) were not duly licensed/registered firearms holders of any type, kind or caliber. As regards petitioner Edgar Cayanan y Acedera (Cayanan), while he may have been a registered firearm holder, the firearm recovered from him was different from that registered under his name. As proof, PSI Callejo submitted a certification to that effect and identified the same in court. The testimony of PSI Callejo or the certification would suffice to prove the second element beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 1 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1866, as amended by RA 8294 5 provides:
Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunitions 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 a 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. AcICHD
xxx xxx xxx
In modifying the prison term imposed by the Regional Trial Court on petitioners, the CA quoted and applied the explanation of the Court in People v. Samson, 6viz.:
x x x For purposes of fixing the indeterminate sentence, the Court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed, and the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by law for the same offense. Although the offense of illegal possession of firearm is punished by a special law, the penalty provided, nevertheless has been taken from the range of penalties found in the Revised Penal Code, thereby effectively adopting the rules set forth therein inclusive of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The penalty for illegal possession of a high-powered firearm (Colt .45 pistol) is prescribed to be prision mayor in its minimum period with a duration of 6 years and 1 day to 8 years. The penalty next lower in degree is thus prision correccional in its maximum period with a duration of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance that has been established, the penalty that can be imposed is, by way of minimum, anywhere within the range of prision correccional maximum or from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years and, by way of maximum, anywhere within the medium period of prision mayor minimum, or from six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor.
Hence, the petitioners were correctly meted out the penalty of an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the assailed January 18, 2013 Decision and March 22, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 34527 are AFFIRMED. caITAC
SO ORDERED." Leonardo De Castro, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2562 dated June 20, 2018; Velasco, Jr., J., designated as additional member per October 18, 2017 raffle vice Jardeleza, J., who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General; and Gesmundo, J., designated as acting member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The case against Espina was considered closed and terminated per Entry of Judgment dated September 29, 2016 in view of the withdrawal of his appeal; see rollo, p. 277.
2.De Leon v. De Leon-Reyes, 785 Phil. 832, 842 (2016).
3.Rosario v. Lim, 796 Phil. 713, 720 (2016).
4.Evangelista v. People, 634 Phil. 207, 227 (2010).
5. 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 on Instruments Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof and for Relevant Purposes"; RA 8294 took effect on June 6, 1997.
6. 432 Phil. 382, 413 (2002).