Quinto y Dela Cruz v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 253685. September 29, 2021.]

CHING QUINTO y DELA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 253685 (Ching Quinto y Dela Cruz v. People of the Philippines). — This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated November 15, 2019 and Resolution 3 dated September 14, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Manila in CA-G.R. CR No. 42348. The CA Decision denied the appeal filed by accused Ching Quinto y Dela Cruz (Quinto) which assailed the Decision 4 dated September 17, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 41, which, in turn, found Quinto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition defined and penalized under Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e-1) of Republic Act (RA) No. 10591, 5 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day as minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day as maximum.

The facts of the case, as found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, are as follows:

On December 1, 2017, Quinto was charged with the violation of Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e-1) of RA No. 10591 before the RTC, allegedly committed as follows:

That on and about November 26, 2017, 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) Improvised SHOT GUN (Sumpak) subsequently marked as 'CQD' loaded with ONE (1) LIVE AMMUNITION of 12 gauge shotgun subsequently marked as 'CQD-1,' without first having secured from the proper authorities the necessary license/permit thereof.

Contrary to law. 6

During arraignment, Quinto pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented PO1 Jerich Padilla (PO1 Padilla) and PO1 Asahi Bagbagen (PO1 Bagbagen) as witnesses. Their testimonies are summarized as follows:

PO1 Padilla testified that he was a police officer assigned at Police Station 1 and was on duty on November 26, 2017. At around 12:05 in the morning, he and PO1 Bagbagen were conducting a patrol along C.P. Garcia Street in Tondo, Manila. In the course thereof, they chanced upon a slight commotion where they heard people shouting "may sumpak siya!", among others. At a distance of about five (5) meters, they saw a group of around four (4) to five (5) people, including Quinto, who was in possession of a sumpak. The group's attention was directed at Quinto who was trying to create a commotion by challenging them to a fight. Quinto uttered loudly: "kupal, magsilabasan kayo, ilabas niyo yung tapang nyo!" Apparently, Quinto was not addressing a particular person. 7

They immediately approached Quinto, introduced themselves and asked him to surrender. Quinto immediately acceded and did not resist arrest. He also surrendered his sumpak to them. They then apprised Quinto of his rights and brought him to the police station where they narrated the incident to the investigating officer. Thereafter, they brought Quinto to the hospital for medical examination then returned him to the police station. Documents needed for the inquest proceedings, such as the Joint Affidavit of Arrest and the Booking Sheet, were then prepared. 8

PO1 Padilla further testified that he placed the marking "CQD" on the sumpak, which stood for Ching Quinto Dela Cruz, as well as the marking "CQD-1" on the shotgun bullet. They also filed a case for Breach of Peace against Quinto before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). PO1 Padilla added that they asked Quinto for a license or authority to possess or carry a firearm but the latter failed to present any. He stated that as a matter of procedure in apprehending an individual for carrying a firearm, they would require the production of a certificate and if said person could not present anything, nothing further was to be done. He disclosed that it was his first time to apprehend an individual involving such an offense as he was previously assigned as a beat patroller where the usual offenses he encountered were traffic violations. 9 CAIHTE

On cross-examination, PO1 Padilla clarified that the incident happened in the early morning of November 26, 2017. Quinto was not part of the group of four (4) to five (5) people, who were two (2) meters away from the former. He insisted that although said group of people were scared of Quinto as the latter was holding a sumpak, they stayed in close proximity to Quinto. He described the location of the incident (C.P. Garcia) as a busy street even during night time. He stressed that he and PO1 Bagbagen, clad in their police uniforms, politely approached Quinto but with their guns ready to be drawn in case of an untoward incident. Quinto nonetheless voluntarily surrendered and handed his sumpak to them. They then informed Quinto of the nature of his arrest along with his constitutional rights. He confirmed that after the arrest, they brought Quinto to Justice Jose Abad Santos General Hospital for medical examination. He could not, however, explain why the Commitment Certificate issued by the hospital bore the date November 25, 2017 instead of November 26, 2017. He stated that he had no participation in the preparation of said document. 10

PO1 Bagbagen corroborated the testimony of PO1 Padilla. He testified that he was on duty on November 26, 2017. At around 12:05 in the morning of said date, he was on patrol duty along C.P. Garcia Street and that he and PO1 Padilla arrested Quinto. They saw that some people were looking at Quinto who was in possession of a sumpak. They were five meters away from Quinto. When they approached and talked to Quinto calmly, the latter voluntarily surrendered to them. Thereafter, Quinto turned the sumpak over to PO1 Padilla. Afterwards, they brought Quinto to the police station for documentation. One of the documents prepared by the investigator was a request for verification to determine if Quinto had a license to possess and carry a firearm. As far as he could remember, Quinto did not have a license. PO1 Bagbagen thereafter identified the Certification dated February 19, 2018 issued by the Firearms and Explosives Office, which stated that Quinto had no authority to carry the firearm. 11

On cross-examination, PO1 Bagbagen clarified that he started his duty in the morning of November 25, 2017 which was extended until night time. He reiterated that he was conducting intensified police operation at C.P. Garcia when they chanced upon Quinto creating trouble around 12:05 in the morning. They were wearing their police uniforms. They saw Quinto holding a shotgun and screaming "mga kupal magsilabas kayo diyan!" while about 30 people were watching him anxiously. PO1 Bagbagen described the area as residential and squatters' area. Upon seeing Quinto, PO1 Padilla approached the accused while he stood as his back-up. PO1 Padilla and Quinto engaged in a calm conversation that led to Quinta's eventual surrender. Quinto also surrendered his sumpak. Thereafter, they informed Quinto of the nature of his arrest as well as his constitutional rights. 12

Quinto, for his part, denied the allegations against him. He testified that the sumpak came from the police officers. The same was taken from a drawer of a table at the police station. Thereafter, the police officer informed him that the sumpak would be the subject of his case during the inquest the next day. He was surprised and asked them why. The police officers replied that they could not do anything because it was an order. He then narrated that at the time of the incident, he was merely waiting for a passenger to ride his sidecar when he was approached by five (5) people wearing civilian clothes who asked him to go with them for verification. Quinto requested that he be brought to the barangay first but was informed that they would not be passing through any barangay office. He was consequently dragged to board a motorcycle and was brought to the police precinct. While there, he said, "Sir, wala naman po akong ginagawa bakit po ganun kinasuhan nyo ako ng sumpak?" Without an answer. he was merely asked to rest for the inquest proceeding the next day. 13 aScITE

On cross-examination, Quinto maintained that five (5) people wearing civilian clothes and carrying guns introduced themselves as police officers and apprehended him while he was waiting for passengers to board his sidecar. He mentioned that the police officers who previously testified against him were not his arresting officers. He deemed that he was arrested due to his tattoos, described to be "tatong pangkulungan." He revealed that he got his tattoos when he was imprisoned at the Manila City Jail for vagrancy. He was released ten (10) years ago. He also has a current case for Breach of Peace before the MeTC with the same police officers herein as witnesses in that case. He reiterated that the sumpak came from the drawer of a table at the police station. He stressed that he did not have the capacity to file charges against the police officers who arrested him. He affirmed that the police officers were the ones who placed his initials on the sumpak. However, he did not question the police officers when they placed his initials thereon. 14

In a Decision dated September 17, 2018, the RTC found the accused Quinto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition defined and penalized under Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e-1) of RA No. 10591. It sentenced Quinto to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day as minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day as maximum. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads, as follows:

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, judgment is hereby rendered CONVICTING accused CHING QUINTO y DELA CRUZ of the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition defined and penalized under Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e-1) of Republic Act No. 10591, and sentences him to suffer imprisonment of eight years and one day, as minimum, to eight years, eight months and one day, as maximum.

The period of his detention must be considered in the service of his sentence.

SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved by the Decision, Quinto filed an appeal before the CA.

In the assailed Decision dated November 15, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision with modification. The CA ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. However, the CA modified the penalty and sentenced Quinto suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 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. Quinto subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied in the assailed Resolution dated September 14, 2020.

Hence, this Petition where Quinto argues that 1) the CA gravely erred in affirming his conviction for violation of Section 28 (e-1) of RA No. 10591 despite the unconvincing and improbable testimony or the prosecution witnesses; and 2) the CA gravely erred in affirming his conviction for the crime charged despite the prosecution's failure to prove the elements thereof. 15

In its Comment, 16 the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintains that the CA correctly affirmed Quinto's conviction. It added that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

The sole issue for consideration is whether the CA correctly affirmed Quinto's conviction for the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.

We rule in the affirmative.

RA No. 10591 or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act was enacted into law on May 29, 2013. Section 2 of the law declared the policy of the State to maintain peace and order and protect the people against violence. The State also recognizes the right of its qualified citizens to self-defense through, when it is the reasonable means to repel the unlawful aggression under the circumstances, the use of firearms. Towards this end, the State shall provide for a comprehensive law regulating the ownership, possession, carrying, manufacture, dealing in and importation of firearms, ammunition, or parts thereof, in order to provide legal support to law enforcement agencies in their campaign against crime, stop the proliferation of illegal firearms or weapons and the illegal manufacture of firearms or weapons, ammunition and parts thereof. 17

Guided by this policy, the law provides that in order to qualify and acquire a license to own and possess a firearm or firearms and ammunition, the applicant must be a Filipino citizen, at least twenty-one (21) years old and has gainful work, occupation or business or has filed an Income Tax Return (ITR) for the preceding year as proof of income, profession, business or occupation, subject to the submission of further documentary requirements under the law. 18 The license is issued by the Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP) through its Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO). 19 The licensed citizen or licensed juridical entity shall then register the firearms so purchased with the FEO of the PNP in accordance with the type of license such licensed citizen or licensed juridical entity possesses. A certificate of registration of the firearm shall be issued upon payment of reasonable fees. 20 The license to own and possess a firearm granted to qualified citizens necessarily includes the license to possess ammunition. 21

Article V of RA No. 10591 provides for the penal provisions of the law. Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (c-1) thereof, under which the accused Quinto was charged, read, as follows:

Section 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;

xxx xxx xxx

(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;

xxx xxx xxx.

The elements of the offense of illegal possession of firearms are: 1) possession of a firearm or a part thereof; and 2) lack of authority or license to possess the firearm. 22

Our ruling in Jacaban v. People23 is particularly instructive, to wit:

The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions are: (1) the existence of subject firearm; and, (2) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it. The unvarying rule is that ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession, which includes not only actual physical possession, but also constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to one's control and management.

In this case, the prosecution sufficiently established the above elements. The prosecution witnesses PO1 Padilla and Bagbagen categorically testified that they recovered the improvised firearm (sumpak) from Quinto. When they asked Quinto if he had a license or permit to possess or carry such firearm, the latter answered in the negative. Thereafter, Quinto's lack of authority or license to possess the firearm was reinforced by the Certification issued by the PNP FEO which stated that Quinto had, indeed, no authority to carry the said firearm.

Quinto takes issue with the fact that the Certification of the FEO was issued only on February 19, 2018, or after the filing of the information on December 6, 2017 and his arraignment on December 19, 2017. This was correctly addressed by the CA when it ruled that there is nothing in RA No. 10591 or the Rules of Court which requires that the Certification must be submitted at the time of the filing of the information and/or the arraignment. The Certification is an evidentiary matter which was eventually presented during the trial proper. 24 It is well to note that the information only needs to state the ultimate facts; the evidentiary and other details can be provided during the trial. 25

At this point, it is well to emphasize that the offense of illegal possession of firearm is malum prohibitum punished by special law and, 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. 26

Quinto's bare denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. All told, the elements of the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition were sufficiently established. Hence, Quinto's conviction must stand.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated November 15, 2019 and Resolution dated September 14, 2020, of the Court of Appeals, Manila in CA-G.R. CR No. 42348 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on official leave; Dimaampao, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2839 dated September 16, 2021). aDSIHc

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 12-35.

2.Id. at 37-49. The CA Decision was penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig.

3.Id. at 51-52.

4.Id. at 66-78. The RTC Decision was penned by Judge Rosalyn D. Mislos-Loja.

5. Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.

6.Rollo, p. 38.

7.Id. at 38.

8.Id. at 38-39.

9.Id. at 39.

10.Id. at 39.

11.Id. at 39-40.

12.Id. at 40.

13.Id. at 40-41.

14.Id. at 41.

15.Id. at 18.

16.Id. at 103-114.

17. RA No. 10591, Section 2.

18. RA No. 10591, Section 4.

19. RA No. 10591, Section 8.

20. RA No. 10591, Section 11.

21. RA No. 10591, Section 12.

22.Fajardo v. People, 654 Phil. 184, 185 (2011).

23. 756 Phil. 523, 524 (2015).

24.Rollo, p 44.

25.People v. Romualdez, 581 Phil. 462, 465 (2008).

26.Peralta v. People, 817 Phil. 554, 556 (2017).