Galat v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 238072. December 2, 2021.]

MA. JOEY B. GALAT, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 2, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 238072 (Ma. Joey B. Galat v. People of the Philippines). — On May 13, 2013 national elections, PO2 Philip Matutino (PO2 Matutino) conducted a roving patrol in Pila Road, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte. At around 12:30 am, PO2 Matutino saw a speeding Nissan Navara pick-up and a Mitsubishi Strada that were trying to overtake each other. PO2 Matutino turned on the blinkers of the police car and both pick-ups stopped at the shoulder of the road. However, the Strada sped away. PO2 Matutino approached the Nissan pick-up and requested the driver, Ma. Joey Galat (Galat), to alight from the vehicle. PO2 Matutino shone his flashlight at the pick-up and noticed that there were two other passengers at the backseat. Later, Laoag City chief of police P/Supt. Melvin Napiloy (P/Supt. Napiloy) and his deputy PCI Jonathan Papay (PCI Papay) arrived on board another police car. As Galat and PO2 Matutino approached the second police car, the two (2) passengers of the Nissan pick-up rushed out and ran away. The policemen chased the two (2) passengers but failed to catch them. PO2 Matutino went back to the Nissan pick-up and found a shotgun on the vehicle's backseat. PO2 Matutino asked for a certificate exempting Galat from the gun ban but he could not present any document. Thus, PO2 Matutino brought Galat to the police station. 1 Thereat, the authorities discovered that the shotgun had serial number YL12-1JZD0305611 2 and was registered with the Laoag City government. 3

Accordingly, Galat was charged with illegal possession of firearms docketed as Criminal Case No. 15523-14, and violation of Section 261 (q) of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended, in relation to Commission on Elections Resolution No. 9561-A, otherwise known as the Election Gun Ban docketed as Criminal Case No. 15525-14 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), thus:

[Criminal Case No. 15523-14]

That on or about the 13th of May 2013, in the City of Laoag, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody [o]ne (1) [s]hotgun, a high powered firearm with Serial no. YL12-1JZ0305611 loaded with five (5) live ammos, without first having secured the necessary permit, license or authority to carry or possess the same from the proper authorities, in violation of the aforesaid law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

[Criminal Case No. 15525-14]

That on or about the 13th day of May 2013, in the City of Laoag, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused within the election period provided by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously have in his control, possession and custody [o]ne (1) [s]hot gun, a high powered firearm with Serial No. YL12-1JZ0305611 loaded with five (5) live ammos, outside his residence, a public place, without the necessary license, permit or authority to possess the same from the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS in violation of the afore[-]cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Galat pleaded not guilty. The parties then agreed to stipulate on the following matters: (1) the identity of Galat as the same person charged in the Information; (2) on May 13, 2013 at about 12:30 in the morning, Galat was driving a Nissan Navara pick-up with plate number FGL 534 along Pila Road, Laoag City; (3) two passengers of the Navara pick-up fled when they saw the police officers; (4) a shotgun was recovered by police officers at the second row of the said Nissan pick-up; (5) Galat is not a registered firearm license holder of any kind and caliber and that he has never applied for a Permit to Carry Firearms; and (6) Galat had no exemption from the gun ban during the May 2013 elections. 4

At the trial, the defense presented the following witnesses: Galat himself, Cirilo Mateo (Mateo) who was allegedly one of the two passengers of the Nissan Navarra and a member of the Civil Service Unit (CSU), and Ret. Colonel Florentino Dumlao (Ret. Col. Dumlao), Chief of the Civil Service Unit of the Government of Laoag City. CAIHTE

Galat narrated that on May 12, 2013, he borrowed the Navara pick-up owned by a certain Nelson C. Ocampo to fetch at the airport the guests of the Grand Octagon Hotel owned by the Galat family. Having encountered an electrical problem at the hotel, Galat used the pick-up to fetch an electrician at Barangay Caaoacan, Laoag City. 5 Later that night, he returned to Barangay Caaoacan to convey the electrician. 6 On his way home, he came upon Cirilo Mateo and a person whom he later learned to be Sonny Guna (Guna), both members of the Civil Security Unit (CSU), in the vicinity of the Caaoacan Elementary School. Mateo asked Galat if he could take them to the city hall. Galat knew that Mateo and his companion were members of the CSU. When Galat acceded to Mateo's request, Mateo and Guna went aboard and occupied the backseat of the pick-up. When the Nissan pick-up reached Pila Road, a Mitsubishi Strada tried to overtake it until a police car arrived. Galat did not deny that the shotgun was recovered by the police authorities inside the pick-up. However, Galat contended that the passengers brought the firearm without his knowledge. 7

Corroborating Galat's testimony, Mateo narrated that he was a CSU supervisor on roving patrol on the night of May 12, 2013. 8 In the evening of May 12, 2013, he was on board a CSU service vehicle driven by another when he came upon Sonny Guna in Caaoacan Elementary School. Guna, being a CSU member assigned to that area, was carrying a shotgun. Mateo alighted from the vehicle and instructed the driver to return to the city hall and to fetch him later. Mateo accosted Guna for carrying a firearm on the eve of the May 13, 2013 election and told him that they should deposit it at the city hall because the elections were just a few hours away. 9 Mateo testified that he and Guna were wearing long jackets at that time. 10 Mateo subsequently sent a text message to the driver for the latter to fetch him but the driver did not reply. Mateo saw Galat passing by so Mateo asked Galat if he and Guna could be taken to the city hall. When the Nissan pick-up was apprehended at Pila Road, allegedly, Guna removed the right sleeve of his jacket, unslung the shotgun, left the shotgun at the backseat and ran away. Because he got nervous, Mateo followed Guna and also ran away. At the time Mateo testified in court, Guna had already passed away. Finally, Ret. Col. Dumlao testified that he was the head of the CSU. On April 29, 2013, he issued an Office Order assigning Sonny Guna to the Caaoacan Elementary School for one month starting May 1, 2013. Col. Dumlao instructed Guna to bring with him his issued firearm while in the performance of his duty and in proper uniform, to coordinate with the PNP operatives, and to return the firearm only at the end of their duty for the month. 11

In its Joint Judgment dated October 30, 2014, 12 the RTC convicted Galat of violation of the COMELEC Resolution No. 9561-A since all the necessary elements of the offense were proven by the prosecution. Moreover, the RTC found the accounts of Galat and Mateo too dubious to support the defense theory that the shotgun was in exclusive possession of Sonny Guna. 13 The RTC considered the improbabilities and inconsistencies in Mateo's testimony as "hallmarks of a fabricated testimony" 14 for the following reasons: (1) If Mateo believed that the firearm should be returned to the city hall, he should have immediately transported it on the CSU vehicle he used for his roving patrol that night instead of remaining with Guna at the Caaoacan Elementary School; (2) the explanations that Mateo gave for sending away the driver of his roving vehicle were inconsistent. At first, Mateo explained that he sent the driver to continue the roving patrol; however, when the public prosecutor pointed out that the driver could not have been authorized to make a roving patrol, Mateo gave another explanation that he merely sent the driver back to the city hall; (3) Mateo's belief that it was improper for a CSU officer to be carrying a shotgun on the eve of elections day is inconsistent with the order issued by Col. Dumlao detailing Guna to the Caaoacan Elementary School, instructing him to carry the firearm while wearing the uniform, to coordinate with the PNP, and to return the firearm only at the end of the month; and (4) Mateo's flight when the pick-up was stopped by PO2 Matutino, when Mateo could have easily explained why the shotgun was carried by Guna. Likewise, the RTC found Galat to be an incredible witness. At the time of the investigation, Galat was reticent to explain why a shotgun was recovered in his vehicle and who or what the passengers were doing at the back of his pickup. However, it was only during trial, and after Guna's death, that both Galat and Mateo pinpointed to Guna as the possessor of the gun. Having found Galat guilty of violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 9561-A, the RTC did not anymore convict Galat for the crime of illegal possession of firearms. Under Republic Act No. 8924, the law in force at the time the crime was committed, a person can be convicted of illegal possession of firearm only if no other crime was committed, thus:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

(1) In Crim. Case No. 15525-15, the accused MA. JOEY GALAT is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the election offense of violation of Section 261 (q) of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to Comelec Resolution No. 9561-A and is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from two years as minimum to three years as maximum. He shall also suffer DISQUALIFICATION to hold public office and DEPRIVATION of the right of suffrage.

(2) In Crim. Case No. 15523-14, the said accused is found NOT GUILTY of illegal possession of firearm pursuant to Agote v. Lorenzo and Madrigal v. People.

Upon the finality of this Joint Judgment, let the subject firearm be RETRIEVED from the evidence custodian of this Court by the Laoag City government consistent with Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code.

SO ORDERED.

Galat elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 37226. Galat argued that his conviction was contrary to the evidence on record and jurisprudence. In its Decision dated August 14, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC's findings. The CA held that Galat's claim "that the shotgun was under the possession and control of his two (2) passengers and that they must have brought the firearm inside the vehicle without his knowledge fails to inspire belief as it does not conform to reason, common sense and human experience." The CA likewise ruled that the prosecution proved Galat's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, 15 to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Joint Judgment dated October 30, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 14 in Criminal Case No. 15525-14 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Galat sought reconsideration but was denied. 16 Hence, this petition. Galat questions the inference drawn by the courts aquo regarding his 'possession' of the shotgun. Galat contends that he was not in constructive possession of the firearm since there were two (2) other occupants in the vehicle and that Guna was in exclusive possession of it. On the other hand, 17 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that Galat seeks a review of the facts, which have already been threshed out before the RTC and CA. Further, the fact that there were two (2) passengers inside the pick-up will not necessarily exculpate Galat from criminal liability. When Galat testified, he insisted that it was Sonny Guna, one of the passengers, who brought the firearm inside the vehicle. Mateo also pointed to Guna as the possessor of the gun. However, the trial court and the CA rejected such an excuse for being too dubious and contrary to human experience.

The petition is unmeritorious. DETACa

A successful prosecution for the violation of Election Gun Ban requires the concurrence of the following elements: 1) the person is bearing, carrying, or transporting firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons; 2) such possession occurs during the election period; and 3) the weapon is carried in a public place. 18 The accused bears the burden to show that he or she has a written authority from the COMELEC to possess the firearm and/or ammunition. 19 In this case, the prosecution established all the elements of the offense. First, Galat was in possession of the subject firearm, he being the driver of the Nissan Navara pick-up from which the shotgun was recovered. Second, Galat was apprehended in possession of the subject firearm inside a private vehicle along Pila Road, a public place. Third, Galat made a judicial admission that he had no exemption from the gun ban during the May 2013 elections.

Anent the veracity of Galat's testimony, we stress that the RTC and CA's uniform assessment on the credibility of the witnesses is given the highest degree of respect, 20 especially if there is no fact or circumstance of weight or substance that was overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied, which could affect the result of the case. 21 Moreover, the RTC had the best opportunity to determine the credibility of the witnesses, having evaluated his or her emotional state, reactions and overall demeanor in open court. Here, both the RTC and CA did not give credence to Galat and Mateo's testimonies that Guna brought the firearm for being flimsy and contrary to human experience. The Court sees no reason to deviate from this finding. At any rate, even assuming that it was Guna who brought the firearm inside the vehicle, this Court finds it contrary to nature and order of things for Galat not to have seen or have been made aware of the shotgun being brought inside the vehicle. Given the sheer size and length of a shotgun, one will readily notice its presence. Besides, assuming that the shotgun was slung inside Guna's body hidden by a jacket, Guna could not have boarded and seated on the pick-up without taking the shotgun out. At the very least, Galat saw the shotgun and acquiesced to the possession and transportation of the same, making him liable for the COMELEC Gun Ban. The Court also finds Mateo's story that he and Guna were returning the shotgun to the city hall to be implausible. For one, Col. Dumlao testified that by virtue of an office order, Guna was authorized to carry a shotgun in connection with his duties and while wearing his official uniform, to coordinate with the PNP, and to return the shotgun only at the end of the month. Since it was only May 13, 2013, Guna was not yet obliged to return the firearm. For another, it was already 12:30 in the morning — even if they reached the city hall, they would have no one to return it to.

To reiterate, violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 9561-A is a mala prohibita crime. Mere carrying or transportation of the gun without the necessary permit is already a violation of the COMELEC resolution, regardless of the criminal intent of the accused. 22 Nevertheless, the intent to perpetrate the offense must still be present. However, since intent is an internal state of the mind, the accused's intention must be established through his external acts. Here, Galat did not deny that the shotgun was found in his vehicle. The burden of evidence then shifted to him to explain his possession, for it is settled that possession of contraband constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or aminus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation of such possession. The burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of aminus possidendi. 23 As discussed earlier, the RTC and CA found the defense witnesses' testimony to be incredible. Therefore, Galat's intent to perpetrate the offense was established through his constructive possession of the shotgun, having been found in the vehicle he was driving without credible and satisfactory explanation.

The Court is not unaware of the case of Mendoza v. People 24 wherein the accused was acquitted of illegal possession of firearm for lack of animus possidendi. In that case, the accused and his friends were riding a motorcycle when they were flagged down by police officers because the motorcycle had no license plate and its three (3) occupants were not wearing a helmet. When the police opened the seat of the motorcycle, they found a .45 pistol, magazine, and ammunition. The accused, being the driver of the motorcycle, was then charged and convicted for possessing the firearm without license. On appeal, however, the Court acquitted the accused. It ruled that 'knowledge is an essential component of intent. Without awareness or knowledge of the existence of the subject firearm and ammunitions, it cannot be said that the petitioner has the intent to possess.' The Court found that the accused had no knowledge of the firearm and ammunition, which were hidden inside the motorcycle's compartment. Too, the firearm's registered owner testified that he placed the gun inside the compartment without the accused's knowledge. Quite the contrary, Galat's disavowal of knowledge was rejected by both the RTC and CA. Moreover, Guna cannot anymore confirm nor deny Mateo and Galat's claims as he is already dead.

Under Section 14 of R.A. 9561-A, the penalty for the violation of the gun ban shall be imprisonment of not less than 1 year but not more than 6 years, without probation. In addition, the penalties of permanent disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage shall be imposed. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty for violation of the election gun ban should have a maximum period of imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, and a minimum period which shall not be less than one year. Hence, the RTC and the CA correctly imposed the indeterminate penalty of 2 years, as minimum, to 3 years, as maximum, with the accessory penalties of disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. aDSIHc

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated August 14, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR No. 37226 is AFFIRMED. The petitioner Ma. Joey Galat is found guilty of violation of Section 261 (q) of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended, in relation to Commission on Elections Resolution No. 9561-A, otherwise known as the Election Gun Ban. The petitioner is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 2 years, as minimum, to 3 years, as maximum, with the accessory penalties of disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRDA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 26- 27.

2.Id. p. 9.

3.Id. pp. 26-27.

4.Id. p. 26.

5.Id. p. 12.

6.Id. p. 27.

7.Id. p. 44.

8.Id. p. 48.

9.Id. p. 45.

10.Id. p. 48.

11.Id. p. 13.

12.Id. p. 58.

13.Id. p. 52.

14.Id. p. 48.

15.Id. at pp. 23-39. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now Member of this Court) and Pablito A. Perez.

16.Id. pp. 40-41.

17.Id. pp. 119-129.

18.Taña y Morados v. People, G.R. No. 251981, December 2, 2020.

19.Dela Cruz v. People, 776 Phil. 653, 691-692 (2016).

20.People v. Matignas, 428 Phil. 834, 869 (2002), citing People v. Basquez, 418 Phil. 426 (2001); People v. Jaberto, 366 Phil. 556, 566 (1999); People v. Deleverio, 352 Phil. 382, 401 (1998).

21.People v. Agalot, 826 Phil. 541 (2018); People v. Orosco, 757 Phil. 299, 310 (2015), citing People v. De Leon, 608 Phil. 701, 721 (2009).

22.Ampo vs. Court of Appeals, 517 Phil. 750 (2006).

23.Abuan v. People, 536 Phil. 672-704 (2006).

24.Mendoza y Esguerra v. People, G.R. No. 234196, November 21, 2018.