Flores v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 219154. September 2, 2015.]

LUIS BENEDICT E. FLORES, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 2, 2015 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 219154(Luis Benedict E. Flores, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent.)

Petitioner Luis Benedict E. Flores seeks to reverse the 29 November 2013 Decision 1 promulgated by the Court of Appeals, affirming with modification the 15 June 2009 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Cebu City, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 1 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8294 or Illegal Possession of Firearms.

An Information 3 dated 17 November 2003 was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu, charging petitioner with illegal possession of a .45 caliber pistol with six (6) live ammunitions without securing the necessary license. Petitioner entered a "not guilty" plea.

The prosecution witnesses narrated that on 16 November 2003, at around 3:30 a.m., police operatives received a tip that an unidentified person was seen roaming inside the public market. The police operatives immediately proceeded to the public market. As they searched the area, they noticed petitioner, armed with a .45 caliber pistol, approaching them. They demanded petitioner to put his pistol down, but the latter refused. A scuffle ensued until petitioner was subdued by the police operatives. Petitioner's pistol was seized and marked, while petitioner was arrested and brought to the police station. Petitioner was subsequently charged with illegal possession of firearm.

During the pre-trial, one of the factual stipulations was that petitioner was not a licensed firearm holder.

Petitioner testified that while he was standing in the public market with a certain Edgardo Briones (Briones), someone grabbed his cellphone and hit him with an armalite. He fell to the ground but was again hit with an armalite. Petitioner was then arrested and brought to the police station. Petitioner denied the charge and asserted that the evidence against him was planted. His companion, Briones, corroborated his testimony. Briones asserted that he did not see petitioner bring a firearm. They filed a case against the police operatives who arrested petitioner.

On 15 June 2009, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, this court hereby finds Accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Illegal Possession of Firearms and hereby sentences him to an imprisonment for a period of six years of prision correccional as minimum to eight years of prision mayor, as maximum.

Furnish copy of this decision to the parties, through their respective counsels.

SO ORDERED. 4

On appeal, petitioner attacked the credibility of the testimonies of the arresting police operatives. Petitioner pointed out the contradictory testimonies of the police operatives, such as who actually recovered the pistol from him, whether the pistol was seen in petitioner's right or left hand, and to the condition of the lighting in the area where petitioner was arrested. Petitioner averred that the element of lack of license to possess a firearm was not duly established by the prosecution because it failed to present any certification from the Philippine National Police (PNP) department concerned.

On 29 November 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction of the trial court with modification as to the penalty imposed. The dispositive portion reads:

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the assailed Decision dated June 14, 2009, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Cebu City, in Criminal Case No. CBU-67858. Accused-Appellant LUIS BENEDICT E. FLORES is found GUILTY of violating Paragraph 2, Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294 or illegal possession of unlicensed high powered firearm, and is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years[,] two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00).

SO ORDERED. 5 HEITAD

The Court of Appeals upheld the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, and dismissed the alleged inconsistencies as trivial and for not having any bearing to the elements of the offense charged. With respect to the element of lack of license, the Court of Appeals ruled that a certification from the PNP was not necessary in this case because petitioner had admitted during pre-trial that he was not a licensed firearm holder.

Petitioner insists that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are replete with serious inconsistencies. Petitioner maintains that the pistol presented by the prosecution was planted and did not come from him. He alleges that he does not own any firearm.

The issue is whether petitioner's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

We do not find any cogent reason to deviate from the findings and the ruling of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The rule is well-established that "the determination of credibility of witnesses is properly within the domain of the trial court. The investigating judge is in the best position to pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses, having personally heard them when they testified and observed their deportment and manner of testifying." 6

In this case, the identification of petitioner by prosecution witnesses who were the arresting police operatives was positive and categorical. They saw petitioner armed with a pistol while roaming a public market. The inconsistencies being peddled by petitioner, such as who took possession of the pistol, whether there was electrical power at the time of the arrest, and to which hand of petitioner was the pistol held, are trifling and do not detract from the proven elements of the offense charged.

Illegal possession of firearms is committed when the holder thereof:

(1) possesses a firearm or a part thereof[; and]

(2) lacks the authority or license to possess the firearm. 7

With respect to the first element, the prosecution presented the pistol alleged to have been in petitioner's possession. Petitioner's denial could not prevail over the arresting police operatives' direct, positive and categorical assertion. Moreover, petitioner could not attribute any malicious motive on the part of the police operatives for them to falsely testify against him.

The second element was also established. The certification from the PNP to the effect that petitioner is not a licensee for the possession of any firearm is not indispensable especially in this case when petitioner admitted during pre-trial that he has no license to carry a firearm. Said stipulation constitutes judicial admission which "may be controverted only upon a clear showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no admission was made." 8 Petitioner failed to controvert his admission.

Paragraph 2, Section 1 of R.A. No. 8294 provides that 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 a high powered firearm, such as a .45 caliber pistol. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the petitioner shall be sentenced "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 said Code[,] and the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense." 9 Thus, the appropriate penalty is four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 November 2013.

SO ORDERED." ATICcS

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurring; rollo, pp. 30-41.

2. Penned by Presiding Judge Geraldine Faith A. Econg; id. at 58-62.

3. CA Decision; supra note 1, at 31.

4. Supra note 2, at 62.

5. Supra note 1, at 40-41.

6. Capangpangan v. People, 563 Phil. 590, 601 (2007).

7. Fajardo v. People, 654 Phil. 184, 203 (2011). (Citation omitted.)

8. Evangelista v. People, 634 Phil. 207, 223 (2010).

9. People v. Castillo, 389 Phil. 51, 65 (2000).