Imberzo v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 244713. September 14, 2021.]

ANIANO S. IMBERZO, *petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 244713 (Aniano S. Imberzo v. People of the Philippines) — Petitioner Aniano Imberzo (Aniano) was charged with Illegal Possession of Explosives in violation of Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, 1 as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, 2 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) under the following information:

That on or about September 14, 2001, at Sitio Boracay, Brgy. Lucanin, Mariveles, Bataan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully has in his possession, custody and control one (1) bottle of homemade explosive with blasting cap which is capable of producing destructive effects on contiguous (sic) objects or causing injury or death to persons without securing the necessary permit or license from the government to possess the same, in violation of the above-mentioned law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

Aniano pleaded not guilty. 4 At the trial, the prosecution presented Antonio Rodriguez (Antonio), George Tumanguil (George), and Senior Police Officer II Leodigario Daniel (SPO2 Daniel). Antonio testified that he is one of the owners of Villa Imperial compound. On September 13, 2001, Aniano and his group dismantled the fence of the compound and started to build their structures on the property. On the following day, about 3:00 p.m., Antonio and his companions were repairing the fence when Aniano and his group arrived. At that time, Aniano was holding a dynamite. An altercation then ensued between Antonio and Aniano's companion Rufino Alcaraz (Rufino). Antonio asked his employee George to call the police. Later, SPO2 Daniel responded and apprehended Aniano. 5 George corroborated Antonio's narration of the events and maintained that he saw Aniano holding a dynamite. 6 Similarly, SPO2 Daniel testified that he saw Aniano holding one bottle of home-made explosive, consisting of what looks like a bottle of gin with a fuse at the top. Immediately, SPO2 Daniel approached Aniano who struggled and dropped the bottle of gin. SPO2 Daniel brought Aniano to the police station and submitted the bottle containing the explosive to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office for examination. 7 Thereafter, Police Chief Inspector Ma. Luisa David (PCI David) examined the specimen, which showed the presence of explosive ingredients nitrate, ammonium, and lead azide. 8

Aniano denied the accusation and averred that he and his companions were finding a relocation area after strong winds destroyed their houses. They occupied and cleaned the vacant property where residents of Villa Imperial compound dump their garbage. Yet, Antonio and his men stopped them from cleaning the area. On September 14, 2001, Aniano and his group resumed cleaning the property but Antonio was there building a fence. Aniano's companion Rufino intervened and had an altercation with Antonio. Afterwards, SPO2 Daniel arrived and arrested Aniano for illegal possession of dynamite. However, Aniano denied that he has an explosive and alleged that SPO2 Daniel just picked up the dynamite from the surrounding area which Antonio's men planted to incriminate him. Benito Celindro (Benito) corroborated Aniano's claim. Benito explained that he was present during the altercation between Antonio and Rufino, but he did not see Aniano holding any explosive. 9 CAIHTE

On February 28, 2017, the RTC found Aniano guilty of illegal possession of explosive and held that the prosecution established all the elements of the offense, 10 thus:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused ANIANO S. IMBERZO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt x x x for his illegal possession of one (1) bottle of homemade explosive with blasting cap; there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, accused x x x is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years imprisonment of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum and to pay a FINE of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). 11

Aniano elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 39952. On September 14, 2018, the CA affirmed Aniano's conviction with modification as to the penalty imposed, 12viz.:

To secure a conviction for the crime of illegal possession of explosive under Section 3 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, the following elements must concur: (1) the offender willfully and unlawfully possess any explosive or incendiary device; (2) he has knowledge of its existence and its explosive character; and (3) the explosive or incendiary device is capable of producing destruction to contiguous objects, causing injury or death to any person. Contrary to accused-appellant's asseveration, the prosecution has established the existence of these elements beyond reasonable doubt.

The first element was proved through SPO2 Daniel's credible testimony that appellant was holding the homemade explosive when the arrest was made. The second element is shown by the accounts of witnesses SPO2 Daniel, Rodriguez, and Tumangil, that accused-appellant was holding the homemade explosive during the altercation that happened on September 14, 2001. That the explosive had a blasting cap betrays accused-appellant's pretense that what he had was plant fertilizer only. And third, the Chemistry Report No. C-062-2001 confirmed that the homemade explosive consisted of a bottle containing ammonium nitrate, an explosive ingredient.

xxx xxx xxx

Under Section 3 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal, and a fine of not less than fifty thousand pesos (Php50,000), shall be imposed upon any person who will be convicted of illegal possession of explosives.

xxx xxx xxx

x x x Accordingly, the Court modifies the penalty imposed on the accused-appellant to an imprisonment of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. DETACa

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Judgment dated February 28, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Mariveles, Bataan, Branch 4, in Criminal Case No. ML-1940, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. 13 (Emphasis in the original)

Aniano sought reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari. Aniano argues that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the offense absent any certification from the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosive Office that he has no license or authority to possess the alleged explosive. In any case, the supposed homemade explosive contained ammonium nitrate, which is a plant fertilizer. In its comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) invokes the ruling in the case of Valeroso v. People14(Valeroso) where the Court declared that either the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from, the PNP Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm or explosive is sufficient to prove the elements of the offense. 15 In this case, the prosecution presented PCI David's certification that the item seized from the accused contained explosive ingredients.

We acquit.

To convict an accused for illegal possession of an explosive devise under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, jurisprudence has held that two essential elements must be indubitably established: (a) the existence of the subject firearm or explosive, which may be proved by the presentation of the subject firearm or explosive or by the testimony of witnesses who saw accused in possession of the same; and (b) the negative fact that the accused had no license or permit to own or possess the firearm or explosive, which fact may be established by the testimony or certification of a representative of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit that the accused has no license or permit to possess the firearm or explosive. 16

Under P.D. No. 1866, the essence of the crime is the accused's lack of license or permit to carry or possess firearm, ammunition, or explosive. Possession by itself is not prohibited by law. 17 Thus, the burden to prove lack of license belongs to the prosecution. 18 Here, while the alleged dynamite was presented to the trial court, the prosecution did not adduce any certification or testimony that Aniano has no permit to possess the supposed explosive. To be sure, the prosecution witnesses merely testified on the fact that Aniano was carrying a dynamite but they failed to attest that he is not a licensee. Verily, the fact that an accused has in his possession an explosive does not relieve the prosecution from its duty to establish the lack of a license or permit to carry such explosive. As always, mere speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proof required to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. 19

Moreover, the OSG misapplied the ruling in Valeroso, which requires the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from, the PNP Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that the accused lacks authority to possess the firearm. In that case, the prosecution more than complied when it presented both. The records verifier from the Firearms and Explosives Division at Camp Crame testified that the seized pistol was not issued to the petitioner but is registered in the name of another person. Also, the chief records officer presented a certification to that effect. In this case, however, the prosecution did not adduce any certification or testimony that Aniano has no permit to possess the supposed explosive. The prosecution presented a certification limited only to the result of the laboratory examination on the contents of the explosive. 20

It is elementary that in a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Where there is reasonable doubt, the constitutionally enshrined presumption of innocence must be favored and the accused must be exonerated as a matter of right, even though his innocence may not have been established. Hence, the Court is left with no alternative but to acquit Aniano of the crime charged against him.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 14, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39952 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Aniano S. Imberzo is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.

Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately. aDSIHc

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

* "Emberso" in some parts of the rollo.

1. Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition, of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof and for Relevant Purposes.

2. Entitled "AN ACT AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1966, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES."

3.Rollo, p. 31.

4.Id. at 15; Certificate of Arraignment.

5. TSN dated February 26, 2003, pp. 87-94; TSN dated July 2, 2003, pp. 103-116.

6. TSN dated January 11, 2004, pp. 126-130.

7. TSN dated October 16, 2002, pp. 30-34.

8. TSN dated December 13, 2006, pp. 175-178.

9. TSN dated February 24, 2010, p. 236.

10. Penned by Presiding Judge Emmanuel A. Silva; records, pp. 352-357.

11.Id. at 355-356.

12. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now Members of this Court).

13.Id.

14. 570 Phil. 58 (2008).

15.Id. at 69.

16.People v. Cortez, 381 Phil. 345, 353 (2000).

17.People v. Go, 406 Phil. 804, 812 (2001).

18.People v. Solayao, 330 Phil. 811, 817 (1996).

19.People v. Dela Rosa, 348 Phil. 173, 189 (1998).

20.People v. Velasco, G.R. No. 231787, August 19, 2019.