Panaligan y Asuncion v. People

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252374. November 24, 2021.]

PERRY PANALIGAN y ASUNCION, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated24 November 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252374 (Perry Panaligan y Asuncion v. People of the Philippines). — This is a petition for review on certiorari1 seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated October 3, 2019 and Resolution 3 dated March 13, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 42186. The assailed CA rulings affirmed with modification the Decision 4 dated April 27, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 17, in Criminal Case Nos. 16-325229-30.

The antecedent facts

Two separate Informations were filed charging petitioner Perry Panaligan y Asuncion (Panaligan) with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition penalized under Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e-1) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10591, and violation of the gun ban penalized under Section 261 (q) of the Omnibus Election Code 5 (OEC) in relation to Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Resolution No. 10015. The accusatory portions of the Informations read:

Criminal Case No. 16-325229(For Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition)

That on or about May 16, 2016, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) unit of Colt .45 caliber revolver with Serial Number 231597 marked as "PPA" loaded with seven (7) ammunitions marked as "PPA-2", "PPA-3", "PPA-4", "PPA-5", "PPA-6", "PPA-7", and "PPA-8" without first having secured from the proper authorities the necessary license thereof.

Contrary to law. 6

Criminal Case No. 16-325230(For Violation of Section 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code)

That on or about May 16, 2016, within the election period which is in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) unit of Colt .45 caliber revolver with Serial Number 231597 marked as "PPA" loaded with seven (7) ammunitions marked as "PPA-2", "PPA-3", "PPA-4", "PPA-5", "PPA-6", "PPA-7", and "PTA-8" by carrying the same inside Barrio Menu located along Dagupan Extension, Tondo, this city, which is a public place and outside of his residence, the same not necessary to his occupation or used as a tool for legitimate activity on the aforesaid date, which is covered by an election period, without first securing the written authority from the COMELEC, as provided for under Section 261(q) of Omnibus Election Code and Sections 32 & 33 of Republic Act [No.] 7166 and COMELEC Resolution No. 10015.

Contrary to law. 7

Panaligan pleaded not guilty to both charges during his arraignment. 8 Joint trial on the merits ensued. CAIHTE

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented as its witnesses Police Officer (PO) 2 Israelito Forteza (PO2 Forteza), PO1 Maverick Bautista (PO1 Bautista), and PO1 Clondjecz Correa (PO1 Correa).

On the morning of May 16, 2016, Barangay Chairman Boyet Dela Rea (Chairman Dela Rea) of Barangay 48, Tondo, Manila, received a complaint from Regina Baldonado (Baldonado) that Panaligan was vehemently knocking at her gate while carrying a gun tucked around his waist. Chairman Dela Rea proceeded to the Dagupan Police Community Precinct to request assistance on the complaint PO2 Forteza, PO1 Correa, PO1 Bautista, and PO1 Rudolf Niño Fajardo accompanied Chairman Dela Rea to Baldonado's house but were informed that Panaligan was already at the barangay basketball court (barangay covered court). 9

They proceeded to the barangay covered court and upon arriving thereat, they saw Panaligan seated on a bench talking with Boy Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) while showing off his gun. Since there was a gun ban, the police officers apprehended them shouting "Walang gagalaw!" 10 Dela Cruz immediately scampered away and Panaligan hurriedly threw his gun to the other side of the bench. He also attempted to run but PO1 Correa grabbed his arm and arrested him. 11

The police officers retrieved a .45 caliber gun with Serial No. 231597 and its magazine loaded with seven rounds of live ammunition. Panaligan was then brought to the hospital for medical examination and afterwards to the police station for investigation and documentation. 12

Upon the police officers' request, the Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) reviewed the details of the gun and issued the Firearms Holder Verification Report concluding that the gun was unregistered and Panaligan had no license or authority to possess it. 13

Version of the Defense

The defense presented Panaligan as its sole witness who denied the allegations against him.

Panaligan alleged that on the morning of May 16, 2016, he was at the barangay covered court talking with his friend Dela Cruz. While they were talking, police officers approached them causing Dela Cruz to immediately run away. He was surprised when he was apprehended that there was a gun one meter away from where he was seated. The police officers retrieved the gun and forced him to admit that he owned it. 14

He claimed he did not know any of the police officers before the incident and was not doing anything unlawful prior to his arrest. He decided not to file charges against the police officers because he did not want to cause any more trouble. 15

The RTC Ruling

After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision 16 convicting Panaligan of both illegal possession of firearm and ammunition and violation of the COMELEC gun ban:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in:

1.) Criminal Case No. 16-325229, Violation of Section 28(a) in relation to Section 28(e-1) of Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunitions) and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional in its maximum period as MINIMUM to ELEVEN (11) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of prision mayor maximum in its medium period as MAXIMUM and to pay a FINE of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and

2.) Criminal Case No. 16-325230, Violation of Section 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code and Sections 32 and 33 of Republic Act No. 7166 and COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWO (2) YEARS. Further, accused shall not be subject to probation. In addition, he shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right to suffrage.

The imprisonment of Perry Panaligan shall be done simultaneously and his preventive imprisonment shall be credited in his favor.

The Court's Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turn over to the Civil and Security Group, Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO), Philippine National Police (PNP), Camp Crame, Quezon City, the subject firearm and ammunitions and to submit compliance herewith within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof. For this purpose, the Chief of the Civil Security Group, Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO), is directed to send a duly authorized representative to this Court to receive the evidence.

SO ORDERED. 17

The RTC gave full credence to the police officers' testimonies that they saw Panaligan at the barangay covered court holding a loaded .45 caliber gun and bragging about it to his friend Dela Cruz prior to his apprehension. It was further established that the gun was unregistered and that Panaligan did not have a license or authority to possess it. DETACa

Aggrieved, Panaligan appealed the RTC Decision.

Panaligan filed a Brief for the Accused-Appellant 18 raising the lone assignment of error:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE [HIS] POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION. 19

He primarily argued that the prosecution failed to prove that he had possession of the gun, whether actual or constructive. This was supported by a statement from PO1 Correa that he saw Dela Cruz in possession of the gun which was left on the bench as he ran away. 20

The State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee. 21 It asserted that the prosecution proved Panaligan's possession of the gun through the testimonies of PO2 Forteza and PO1 Correa. It was further alleged that Panaligan failed to explain why the gun was found near him. His attempt to resist arrest and flee was also a clear indication of guilt.

Regardless, even if the gun was not actually recovered from Panaligan himself but only near the area where he was seated, he is still deemed to have constructively possessed it because it was subject to his control and management.

The CA Ruling

The CA rendered its Decision 22 denying Panaligan's appeal. It affirmed his convictions for both criminal charges but deleted the line imposed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated April 27, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Manila is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as follows:

l. In Criminal Case No. 16-325229, appellant Perry Panaligan y Asuncion is hereby held GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 28 (a), in relation to Section 28 (e-1), or R.A. No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act), and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. The fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) is hereby DELETED.

2. In Criminal Case No. 16-325230, appellant Perry Panaligan y Asuncion is hereby held GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 10015, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of one (1) year, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum, and is INELIGIBLE from applying for probation. He is further DISQUALIFIED from holding public office and DEPRIVED of the right to suffrage.

SO ORDERED. 23

The CA held that the prosecution proved Panaligan's unlawful possession of the gun through the police officers' testimonies. The factual findings of the RTC and its assessment of the police officers' credibility as witnesses are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed.

On the alleged inconsistency in PO1 Correa's testimony regarding possession of the gun, the CA held it was insufficient to negate the charges. His testimony was only intended to corroborate PO2 Forteza's testimony which served as the main basis of Panaligan's convictions. The CA reasoned:

The alleged inconsistency in the testimony of PO1 Correa as to appellant's [Panaligan's] possession of the firearm will not serve to negate the charges since his testimony merely corroborated the testimonies of the two other witnesses, PO2 Forteza and PO1 Bautista, both of whom consistently testified as to the existence of the subject firearm and appellant's possession thereof. PO2 Forteza remained steadfast in his testimony that he saw appellant as the one holding the gun at the time they approached him. 24

Panaligan filed a motion for reconsideration 25 of the decision, to which the OSG filed a comment. 26 The CA denied Panaligan's motion through its Resolution. 27.

Hence, the instant petition.

Panaligan in his petition 28 essentially reiterated his primary argument that the prosecution failed to prove his possession of the gun. He highlighted PO1 Correa's statement that it was Dela Cruz whom he saw with possession of the gun. He additionally argued that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of events that led to his arrest and discovery of the firearm since it did not present Chairman Dela Rea and Baldonado as witnesses.

The OSG filed a comment 29 reiterating that Panaligan's possession of the gun was duly proven by the testimonies of the police officers who saw him at the barangay covered court. Nevertheless, even if it was found only where he was seated, he is deemed to have constructively possessed it.

Issue

The issue in this case is whether or not Panaligan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes charged. aDSIHc

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is denied.

At the outset, it bears stressing that this Court is not a trier of facts and factual issues are beyond the purview of a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The general rule is that factual findings and the assessment of witnesses' credibility are left to the determination of the trial court which had the best opportunity to examine their demeanor on the stand. The factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are deemed binding on this Court and will no longer be disturbed on appeal. 30 Although there are recognized exceptions to this rule, none are present in this case to warrant this Court's power of review.

Conviction for violation of

The unauthorized possession of firearms during election period is specifically penalized under Section 261 of the OEC:

Sec. 261. Prohibited Acts. — The following shall be guilty of an election offense:

xxx xxx xxx

(q) Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business. — Any person who, although possessing a permit to carry firearms, carries any firearms outside his residence or place of business during the election period, unless authorized in writing by the Commission: Provided, That a motor vehicle, water or air craft shall not be considered a residence or place of business or extension hereof. x x x

This was amended by R.A. No. 7166 which imposed the similar prohibition in all public places:

Section 32. Who May Bear Firearms. — During the election period, no person shall bear, carry or transport firearms or other deadly weapons in public places, including any building, street, park, private vehicle or public conveyance, even if licensed to possess or carry the same, unless authorized in writing by the Commission. The issuance of firearm licenses shall be suspended during the election period.

Only regular members or officers of the Philippine National Police, the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other law enforcement agencies of the Government who are duly deputized in writing by the Commission for election duty may be authorized to carry and possess firearms during the election period: Provided, That, when in the possession of firearms, the deputized law enforcement officer must be: (a) in full uniform showing clearly and legibly his name, rank and serial number which shall remain visible at all times; and (b) in the actual performance of his election duty in the specific area designated by the Commission.

Pursuant to its mandate to enforce this prohibition during the 2016 election period, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 10015 implementing a gun ban. Section 1, Rule II of this Resolution provided the following rules and regulations:

SECTION 1. Prohibited Acts. — During the Election Period:

a. No person shall bear, carry or transport Firearms or Deadly Weapons outside his residence or place of business, and in all public places, including; any building, street, park, and in private vehicles or public conveyances, even if he is licensed or authorized to possess or to carry the same, unless authorized by the Commission, through the CBFSP, in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution;

b. No person shall employ, avail himself or engage the services of security personnel or bodyguards, whether or not such security personnel or bodyguards are regular members or officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), other law enforcement agency of the government or from a private security service provider, unless authorized by the Commission, through the CBFSP, in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution;

c. No person or entity shall transport and deliver Firearms and/or its parts, Ammunition and/or its components, and Explosives and/or its components, unless authorized by the Commission, through the CBFSP, in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. 31 (Underscoring supplied)

Section 3, Rule X of Resolution No. 10015 imposed the penalty of imprisonment for violation of the gun ban:

SECTION 3. Penalty for Election Offenses. — Any person found guilty of any election offense described in this Resolution shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six years and shall not be subject to probation. In addition, the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. If he is a foreigner, he shall be sentenced to deportation which shall be enforced after the prison term has been served. 32

A conviction for this offense requires proof of the following elements: (1) the person is bearing, carrying, or transporting firearms or other deadly weapons; (2) such possession occurs during the election period; and (3) the weapon is carried in a public place. 33 This Court has ruled that the accused has the burden to show that he or she has a written authority from the COMELEC to possess a firearm. 34

Guided by the foregoing, the prosecution in this case established all the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. ETHIDa

The second and third elements are undisputed. The incident occurred on May 16, 2016 which was within the election period from January 10, 2016 to June 8, 2016. 35 It also occurred at the barangay covered court which is a public place.

The first element that Panaligan carried a firearm was established through the positive testimonies of PO2 Forteza, PO1 Bautista, and PO1 Correa. As noted by the CA, PO2 Forteza's testimony was clear, straightforward, and credible. He narrated during his direct examination that he saw Panaligan at the barangay covered court conversing with Dela Cruz and showing off his gun:

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF PO2 FORTEZA BY ACT PAGADUAN:

xxx xxx xxx
ACP Pagaduan	x x x So, while you were at your office at PCP, Mr. Witness, was there any unusual incident that took place?
Witness	Yes, sir.
ACP Pagaduan	Can you please tell the Court, what was that unusual incident?
Witness	Chairman Dela Rea of Brgy. 48 went to our outpost and asked for assistance from us, sir.
ACP Pagaduan	And what is that assistance, any way, if you know?
Witness	That there was someone roaming around the covered court with a gun, sir.
ACP Pagaduan	So, when this Chairman Boyet Dela Rosa asked for your assistance, what did you do thereafter?
Witness	We accompanied him to point the accused where he is, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
ACP Pagaduan	Upon reaching the said covered court in Barrio Menu, what did you notice thereafter in the place?
Witness	We saw Perry Panaligan conversing to another person showing his gun, sir.
ACP Pagaduan	Showing his gun.
Witness	Yes, sir.
ACP Pagaduan	And after you saw, together with your companion[s], that he [Perry Panaligan] was holding a gun, what police action did you do thereafter?
Witness	We apprehended (sinita) him saying, "walang gagalaw" and then PO1 Correa immediately got his gun, sir. 36 (Emphasis supplied)

PO2 Forteza was questioned by the defense during cross-examination but he remained steadfast and resolute that he saw Panaligan holding a gun which led to his apprehension. PO2 Forteza pertinently testified during his cross-examination:

Atty. Torrentira	How far were you when you first noticed the accused in this case inside that covered court, Mr. Witness?
Witness	More or less Five to 10 meters (5-10), sir.
Atty. Torrentira	And at that time that you mentioned a while ago that the accused has a companion, do you confirm that?
Witness	Yes, Sir.
Atty. Torrentira	And he was showing his gun to his companion, right?
Witness	Yes, sir.
Atty. Torrentira	And showing the gun to his companion, he also handed the gun to his companion; do you confirm that?
Witness	No, sir.
Atty. Torrentira	So, how did he show his gun to his companion?
Witness	He was holding the gun while showing it to his companion, sir.
Atty. Torrentira	And how did you know that he was showing it to his companion?
Witness	When we arrived there, we saw him showing his gun to another person and it was pointed by Chairman Dela Rea that the subject person was him, sir. 371

Panaligan likewise failed to discharge his burden to prove that he was authorized by the COMELEC to carry the gun. Even worse, the Firearms Holder Verification Report issued by the FEO certified that he did not have any license to possess it.

The argument that PO1 Correa gave an inconsistent statement and identified Dela Cruz as the one who held the gun is insufficient to overturn the common findings of the RTC and the CA. It must be remembered that courts weigh the totality of evidence to determine if the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt has been established. Hence, the mere existence of an inconsistent statement from one of the witnesses in this case does not automatically negate the entire body of evidence presented by the prosecution.

For one, the testimonies of PO2 Forteza and PO1 Bautista who apprehended Panaligan were found credible by the RTC and the CA. These testimonies are sufficient to establish the fact that Panaligan was seen in possession of the gun at the barangay covered court. His conviction was not dependent on PO1 Correa's testimony. cSEDTC

Second, the RTC was in the best position to evaluate the witnesses' credibility and weigh the evidence. In this regard, despite PO1 Correa's inconsistent statement, it concluded that "from afar, the police officers and Barangay Chairman Dela Rea saw accused [Panaligan] holding and showing the subject firearm to Boy Dela Cruz. It was only when accused and Dela Cruz saw them approaching that accused let go of the firearm." 38 This factual finding was affirmed by the CA and is thus entitled to great weight and respect by this Court.

Third, the circumstances around Panaligan's apprehension belie his claim that he did not possess the gun. Based on human experience, he and Dela Cruz would not have instinctively ran away upon seeing the police officers if they were not violating any law or doing anything wrong. It is recognized that unexplained flight is indicative of guilt since "the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the innocent are as bold as a lion." 39

Panaligan's admission that there was a gun near him but did not know why or how it got there is questionable. A gun is not a normal object lying around in a public basketball court as to escape his attention. His claims are therefore unbelievable and cannot outweigh the police officers' positive testimonies.

Consequently, the RTC and the CA did not commit reversible error in convicting Panaligan for violation of the COMELEC gun ban.

Conviction for unlawful possession

The offense of Unlawful Acquisition, or Possession of Firearms and Ammunition is penalized under Section 28 (a) of R.A. No. 10591 as follows:

SEC. 28. Unlawful Acquisition, or Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. — The unlawful acquisition, possession of firearms and ammunition shall be penalized as follows:

(a) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm[.]

Under Section 28 (e-1) of R.A. No. 10591, the offense is qualified and imposed a penalty one (1) degree higher when the firearm involved is loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine:

(e) The penalty of one (1) degree higher than that provided in paragraphs (a) to (c) in this section shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm under any or combination of the following conditions:

(1) Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine[.]

To sustain a conviction for Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Ammunition, the prosecution must prove: (1) the existence of subject firearm; and (2) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned it does not have the corresponding license or authority to possess it. 40

The mere possession of a firearm, independent of criminal intent, is sufficient to convict a person for unlawful possession of firearms. However, it must still be shown that the accused had animus possidendi, or an intent to possess the firearm. This Court in People v. De Gracia41 differentiated intent to possess from criminal intent as follows:

In the present case, a distinction should be made between criminal intent and intent to possess. While mere possession, without criminal intent, is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm, it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the part of the accused. Such intent to possess is, however, without regard to any other criminal or felonious intent which the accused may have harbored in possessing the firearm. Criminal intent here refers to the intention of the accused to commit an offense with the use of an unlicensed firearm. This is not important in convicting a person under Presidential Decree No. 1866. Hence, in order that one may be found guilty of a violation of the decree, it is sufficient that the accused had no authority or license to possess a firearm, and that he intended to possess the same, even if such possession was made in good faith and without criminal intent.

Concomitantly, a temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless possession or control of a firearm cannot be considered a violation of a statute prohibiting the possession of this kind of weapon, such as Presidential Decree No. 1866. Thus, although there is physical or constructive possession, for as long as the animus possidendi is absent, there is no offense committed. 42 (Citations omitted)

It was emphasized that animus possidendi is "a state of mind which may be determined on a case to case basis, taking into consideration the prior and coetaneous acts of the accused and the surrounding circumstances." 43

Notably, prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 10591, the offense of unlawful possession of firearms was governed by R.A. No. 8294, which amended Presidential Decree No. 1866. Under this previous law, an accused could not be convicted for unlawful possession of firearms or ammunition if another crime was committed. Section 1 explicitly provided:

SECTION 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. — The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was committed. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

This Court therefore held that a violation of a COMELEC gun ban constituted "another crime" which precluded the accused's conviction for a separate offense of unlawful possession of firearms or ammunition. 44 This ruling was applied regardless of the fact that the accused would effectively be acquitted of the more serious offense of unlawful possession of firearms which carried a heavier penalty than the violation of the COMELEC gun ban. 45

However, with the enactment of R.A. No. 10591 amending R.A. No. 8294, the requirement that "no other crime was committed" in the definition of the offense was deleted. This deletion evinced the new and prevailing intent of the law to allow simultaneous conviction for the offense of unlawful possession of firearms and other crimes, save for instances when the former shall be deemed absorbed.

In this case, the prosecution sufficiently proved all the elements of qualified Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. Considering that simultaneous conviction for this offense with other crimes is now possible, Panaligan's conviction was proper. SDAaTC

The first element is admitted since Panaligan did not question the existence of the gun and ammunition retrieved by the police officers. He merely claimed that it was one meter away from him and that he allegedly did not possess it.

The second element was also established that Panaligan had possession of the gun. As previously discussed, the prosecution proved through testimonial evidence that Panaligan was seen possessing the gun and showing it off to his friend Dela Cruz. This was further supported by the other circumstances surrounding Panaligan's apprehension. He admitted the presence of the gun one meter away from him on the bench where he was seated but could not explain how and why it was there. He also could not explain why he and Dela Cruz both immediately ran away upon seeing the police officers. We concur with the CA's conclusion that such flight in these circumstances is indicative of guilt.

Panaligan likewise did not have any license or authority to carry the gun as confirmed by the Firearms Holder Verification Report issued by the FEO.

Finally, the offense was qualified since the .45 caliber gun with Serial No. 231597 retrieved from Panaligan contained seven rounds of live ammunition. The ammunition was presented in evidence and was not denied by Panaligan.

Penalties imposed

In Criminal Case No. 16-325229 for qualified Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Ammunition, the CA correctly modified the penalty imposed to imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. This penalty is in accordance with Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e-1) of R.A. No. 10591. The deletion of the fine is affirmed for lacking legal basis.

In Criminal Case No. 16-325230 for violation of the COMELEC gun ban, the penalty imposed by the CA of imprisonment of one (1) year, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum, without eligibility for probation, is compliant with Section 3, Rule X of COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 and affirmed. Panaligan's disqualification from holding public office and deprivation of the right to suffrage are also upheld.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated October 3, 2019 and Resolution dated March 13, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42186 are AFFIRMED.

1. In Criminal Case No. 16-325229, Perry Panaligan y Asuncion is found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e-1) of Republic Act No. 10591. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.

2. In Criminal Case No. 16-325230, Perry Panaligan y Asuncion is found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 261 (q) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (the Omnibus Election Code), as amended by Section 32 of Republic Act No. 7166, in relation to Commission on Elections Resolution No. 10015. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum, without the benefit of probation, and with deprivation of his right to suffrage and disqualification from holding public office.

SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 13-31.

2.Id. at 33-49. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon concurring.

3.Id. at 51-53.

4.Id. at 65-78. Penned by Presiding Judge Felicitas O. Laron Cacanindin.

5. Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, series of 1985.

6.Rollo, p. 65.

7.Id. at 65-66.

8.Id. at 35.

9.Id. at 35-36.

10.Id. at 36.

11.Id.

12.Id.

13.Id.

14.Id. at 37.

15.Id.

16.Id. at 65-78.

17.Id. at 76-77.

18.Id. at 54-64.

19.Id. at 56.

20.Id. at 60-62.

21.Id. at 79-94.

22.Id. at 33-49.

23.Id. at 47-48.

24.Id. at 43.

25.Id. at 97-101.

26.Id. at 102-106.

27.Id. at 51-53.

28.Id. at 13-31.

29.Id. at 120-139.

30.Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 234196, November 21, 2018.

31. COMELEC Resolution No. 10015, Rule II, Section 1.

32.Id., Rule X, Section 3.

33.Gonzales v. People, 826 Phil. 190, 200-201 (2018).

34.Dela Cruz v. People, 776 Phil. 653, 692 (2016).

35. COMELEC Resolution No. 9981, promulgated on August 18, 2015. The prescribed election period was from 120 days before to 30 days after Election Day on May 9, 2016. (See also COMELEC Resolution No. 10015, Rule I, Section 1 [h].)

36.Rollo, pp. 41-42.

37.Id. at 88-89.

38.Id. at 73.

39.People v. Mores, 712 Phil. 480, 495 (2013).

40. See De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. 240475, July 24, 2019.

41. 304 Phil. 118 (1994).

42.Id. at 130.

43.Id. at 131.

44. See Dela Cruz v. People, supra note 34 at 697.

45.Agote v. Judge Lorenzo, 502 Phil. 318, 334 (2005).