THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 260330. August 23, 2022.][Formerly UDK 17454]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.RIZALDO DE LA ROSA y BALBINO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 23, 2022, which reads as follows: HEITAD
"G.R. No. 260330 [Formerly UDK 17454] (People of the Philippines v. Rizaldo de la Rosa y Balbino). — The Court DISPENSES with petitioner's compliance with the Resolution dated August 17, 2022, requiring petitioner to (1) pay the amount of P1,530.00 as additional payment for the docket and lawful fees; and (2) submit a copy of the "Re-entry of Appearance as Collaborating Counsel with Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review and Motion for Provisional Liberty under the Same Bailbond."
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 rails against the Decision2 dated 15 February 2021 and the Resolution3 dated 21 July 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 03537. The impugned Decision affirmed the conviction of petitioner Rizaldo dela Rosa y Balbino (Rizaldo) for the crime of violation of Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e) (1) of Article V of Republic Act (RA) No. 10591 via the Decision 4 dated 6 December 2018 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 29, in Crim. Case No. 14-74244. 5 On the other hand, the assailed Resolution denied the motion for reconsideration thereof for lack of merit.
The Petition must be denied pursuant to Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.6
First. The Petition was belatedly filed on 10 November 2021, or beyond the reglementary period within which petitioner should have filed the same. The records evince that he received the assailed Resolution on 26 September 2021 and had 15 days therefrom to file his Petition before the Court. 7
Second. Petitioner did not comply with the following procedural requirements: 1) payment of P530.00 for docket and lawful fees, as well as P1,000.00 for Sheriff's Trust Fund; 2) verified declaration of the electronic submission of the filed soft copy of the petition as required under the Rules on E-Filing (A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC) and the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC); 3) statement anent the material date of the filing of the motion for reconsideration of the challenged decision a quo; 4) written explanation of service and filing required under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 2019 Amended Rules of Court; 5) verification of the petition and certification of non-forum shopping; 6) affidavit of service upon the adverse party and the CA; and 7) proof of service of the petition upon the adverse party.
At any rate, even if the Court turns a blind eye to the foregoing procedural infirmities, Rizaldo still failed to show any reversible error committed by the CA in rendering the challenged Decision and Resolution.
In determining whether there was a lawful search incidental to an arrest, as in the instant case, this Court must first resolve the question of whether a valid arrest took place. Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a peace officer may without a warrant arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. This is known as in flagrante delicto arrest. For its validity, the person to be arrested must have executed an overt act in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer, indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime. 8
In the case at bench, the police officers flagged and asked Rizaldo to stop as he was not wearing a crash helmet while driving his motorcycle. Instead of stopping as ordered, he, however, attempted to make a U-turn and flee from the officers. This overt act obviously constitutes disobedience to a lawful order, which is punishable under the Revised Penal Code. 9 The police officers appropriately effected a warrantless arrest upon him. Accordingly, the incidental search, which yielded to the discovery of an unlicensed firearm in Rizaldo's possession, was perforce valid.
Along this grain, the corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of firearms is the accused's lack of license or permit to possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited by law. To establish the corpus delicti, the prosecution has the burden of proving that: (a) the firearm exists; and (b) the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess or carry the same. 10
Both the RTC and the CA were in accord with the finding that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of violation of Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e) (1) of Article V of RA No. 10591. The prosecution witnesses positively identified Rizaldo from whom a Springfield Armory model 1911-A1 .45 caliber pistol with serial number 537267 was seized and forthwith marked, identified, offered, and properly admitted as evidence during the trial. The certification dated 16 May 2016 issued by the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office confirmed that Rizaldo was not a duly licensed/registered firearm holder of any type, kind, or caliber of firearms.
It is doctrinal that the findings of the trial courts on the credibility of witnesses deserve a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed during appeal. 11 Absent any extraordinary circumstance justifying otherwise, the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court.
In sooth, Rizaldo miserably failed to demonstrate that the CA committed any reversible error as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case.
Be that as it may, the Court deems it proper to modify the penalty imposed upon Rizaldo, who was charged with violation of Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e) (1) of RA No. 10591. Such offense carries with it a penalty one degree higher than that provided in Section 28 (a). One degree higher than prision mayor in its medium period is prision mayor in its maximum period, ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty should be within the range of ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to eleven (11) years and four (4) months of prision mayor maximum and the minimum penalty should be within the range of prision mayor medium which is eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Accordingly, Rizaldo should be sentenced to 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.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 15 February 2021 and the Resolution dated 21 July 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 03537 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that petitioner Rizaldo de la Rosa y Balbino shall suffer the indeterminate sentence 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.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-14.
2.Id. at 17-32. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles (now retired) with the concurrence of Associate Justices Lorenzana Redulla Bordios and Bautista G. Corpin, Jr.
3.Id. at 50-52.
4.Id. at 34-39. Penned by Judge Gloria G. Madero.
5. Otherwise known as the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act. Approved on 29 May 2013.
6. Section 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
The Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny the petition on the ground that the appeal is without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
7. Moreover, and contrary to the averments contained in the instant Petition, this Court has not received any motions for extension of time to file the petition to date.
8. See Duropan v. People, G.R. No. 230825, 10 June 2020.
9. Article 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not being included in the provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.
When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging from P10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender.
10.Peralta v. People, 817 Phil. 554-568, 562 (2017).
11. See Labosta v. People, G.R. No. 243926, 23 June 2020.