FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234361. February 5, 2018.]
KHALID MUSTAFA y DELOS REYES ALIAS "SADDAM", petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 5, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234361 — Khalid Mustafa y Delos Reyes alias "Saddam" v. People of the Philippines
This Court resolves to GRANT the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Khalid Mustafa y Delos Reyes seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on October 11, 2017 within which to file said Petition.
This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and accordingly 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 May 31, 2017 Decision and September 11, 2017 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 38596.
A petition for review under Rule 45 is limited only to questions of law. Factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari. In the present petition, petitioner contends that his warrantless arrest was illegal and that there was no evidence to establish the fact of his possession of a firearm loaded with ammunition. Clearly, their resolution requires this Court to delve into the underlying issue of whether or not evidence exists to hold petitioner criminally liable for said offense, 1 which necessitates a review of the factual findings which is not a function of this Court. It is not the duty of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below. 2 This Court therefore finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court which were affirmed by the CA.
In any case, a re-examination by this Court of the merits of the case will not result in a different outcome. The elements of the offense of illegal possession of firearm (violation of Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 [e-1] of Republic Act No. 10591, the Comprehensive Law of Firearms and Ammunitions) are: (1) the existence of the subject firearm; and, (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess the same. 3 Here, it is undisputed that the first element was established. Petitioner was caught in possession of a .38 caliber firearm which PO1 Alvin Cañaveral (POI Cañaveral) marked and turned over to the police investigator for proper disposition. POI Cañaveral also gave the ammunitions found inside the firearm to the police investigator. During the trial, PO1 Cañaveral identified the .38 caliber firearm and the ammunition as well as the markings he made thereon. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty must be respected. 4 The second element was also established as the Memorandum from the Firearms and Explosives Division of the Philippine National Police stated that petitioner was not a licensed or registered firearm holder of any kind of caliber.
Petitioner's argument that his warrantless arrest was unlawful fails to sway. It must be emphasized that petitioner can no longer question the legality of his arrest which should have been raised in a motion to quash the Information filed prior to his arraignment and entry of plea. 5 Petitioner did not file such motion. Thus, his failure to object is deemed waived. 6
Even assuming that petitioner could validly question his arrest, his act of speeding away in his motorcycle instead of stopping at a police checkpoint when he was told to do so for not wearing a helmet, gave valid and legal grounds to the apprehending officer to arrest him without a warrant. He was actually committing an offense in the presence of POI Cañaveral at the time of his arrest. 7
Petitioner's defenses of denial and alibi must be brushed aside for being inherently weak. They cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that he committed the offense. 8
For the unlawful possession of the firearm, the law imposes a penalty of prision mayor in its medium period. 9 However, the penalty one degree higher shall apply since the firearm was loaded with ammunitions. 10 This penalty is prision mayor in its maximum period. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be within the range of 10 years, 8 months and 1 day to 11 years and 4 months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period should be the penalty next lower in degree. This is prision mayor in its medium period, which is from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years. Thus, the indeterminate prison term that petitioner must suffer is 9 years and 4 months of prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to 11 years and 4 months of prision mayor in its maximum period, as maximum.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed May 31, 2017 Decision and September 11, 2017 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 38596 finding petitioner Khalid Mustafa y Delos Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 [e-1] of Republic Act No. 10591 with modification of the penalty to 9 years and 4 months of prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to 11 years and 4 months of prision mayor in its maximum period, as maximum.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Miro vs. Vda. De Erederos, 721 Phil. 772, 786 (2013).
2.Conde vs. IAC, 228 Phil. 145, 149 (1986).
3.People v. PO2 Abriol, 419 Phil. 609, 636 (2001).
4.Id. at 630.
5.People v. Salvador, 708 Phil. 637, 684 (2013).
6.People v. Tan, 649 Phil. 262, 277 (2010).
7.Id.
8.People v. Ebet, 649 Phil. 181,198 (2010).
9. Section 28 (a) of RA 10951.
10. Section 2 (e) (1).