Ramos y Conde v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 234400. January 22, 2018.]

MARK ANTHONY RAMOS y CONDE, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 22, 2018, which reads as follows: cSaATC

"G.R. No. 234400 (Mark Anthony Ramos y Conde vs. People of the Philippines). — This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 22, 2017 Decision and September 14, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38439.

Facts

In an Information dated May 19, 2015, petitioner Mark Anthony Ramos (Ramos) was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition penalized under Section 28 (a) 1 in relation to (e-1) 2 of RA 10591, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act." 3

When arraigned, Ramos pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution evidence disclosed that on May 15, 2015, at around 12:30 AM, while PO1 Wilson Panganiban and PO3 Jackson Caballero of the Philippine National Police (PNP)-Manila Police Department were patrolling the area along MICT, Pier 2, North Harbor in Tondo, Manila, they chanced upon a male person — later identified as petitioner Ramos — holding a gun. They introduced themselves as policemen and inquired if petitioner Ramos had a license for the gun. The latter, however, did not say a word. Consequently, PO1 Panganiban seized the gun from petitioner and arrested him. After informing the petitioner of his rights, the policemen brought him to the nearest hospital for a medical check-up, and later, to their station for investigation and processing.

At the police precinct, a Joint Affidavit of Apprehension detailing the incident was executed by the apprehending police officers. The seized gun, a .38 calibre homemade pistol (paltik) without serial number, with five (5) live ammunition contained therein, were marked by PO1 Panganiban with his initials, ("MCR" and "MCR-1" to "MCR-5"), and photographed. Thereafter, PO3 Reynaldo Ferrer, the investigator on duty, prepared the following: 1) a Booking Sheet and Arrest Report; 2) Letter to the Manila City Prosecutor's Office requesting an Inquest; and 3) Request for Firearms Verification addressed to the PNP-Firearms Explosives Offices (PNP-FEO) in Camp Crame, Quezon City. Subsequently, pursuant to the station's operating procedure, PO1 Panganiban, as the arresting officer, took custody of the seized gun and ammunition until these were presented as evidence in court.

As it happened, the PNP-FEO issued a Certification dated July 22, 2015 attesting that, per their records, petitioner Ramos is not a licensed nor a registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber. On the basis thereof, the Manila City Prosecutor's Office found probable cause to indict petitioner of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition.

For his part, petitioner Ramos interposed the defenses of denial and frame-up. He averred that on May 13, 2015, at around 11:00 PM while he was in front of his house watching "video karera," four (4) policemen arrived and arrested him for a fabricated robbery charge. He was then bodily frisked, but the search only yielded a pair of pliers; not a gun. He was later brought to the Delpan Police Station where he was physically abused. He lamented that he does not know the policemen, nor the motive behind the fabricated charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition against him.

In its January 13, 2016 Decision, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 20 found the petitioner GUILTY as charged, disposing as follows:

Premises considered, the Court finds the accused MARK ANTHONY RAMOS y CONDE a.k.a "MARK" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and is hereby imposed the penalty of ten years of prision mayor.

The .38 caliber paltik and its five live ammunitions are ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be later on disposed in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved, Ramos interposed an appeal with the CA.

The CA's Ruling

The appellate court affirmed with modification the ruling of the RTC, thusly:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered the Judgment dated 13 January 2016 of Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Manila is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that appellant Mark Anthony Ramos is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as MINIMUM, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum in its medium period, as MAXIMUM. cHDAIS

SO ORDERED. 4

In so ruling, the CA found that the prosecution was able to convincingly establish both elements of the malum prohibitum offense of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition, i.e., (i) the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition, and (ii) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed said firearm and ammunition does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess it. The appellate court likewise noted that the prosecution was able to show that the firearm and ammunition seized from appellant were the very same ones presented in court. The CA further found that Ramos failed to present corroborative proof of his self-serving claim of frame-up, much less of his assertion that he was beaten and maltreated by the police; and no malice or ill-motive was shown to exist on the part of the police officers for arresting and later testifying against Ramos.

As for the penalty, however, the CA observed that pursuant to Section 28 (e-1) of RA 10591, the penalty for illegal possession of a small firearm that is loaded with ammunition is one (1) degree higher than that provided under sub-paragraph (a) thereof, that is, prision mayor in its medium period. Accordingly, the appellate court held that the imposable penalty is prision mayor in its maximum period. The CA further stated that the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) is applicable given that RA 10591 carries penalties with the same nomenclature as that of offenses under the RPC.

Petitioner moved for, but was denied, reconsideration. Hence, the present petition.

Issue

The primordial issue in this case is whether the petitioner is guilty of the crime charged.

The Court's Ruling

We find the petition bereft of merit.

The grounds relied upon in the present petition were the same exact grounds adduced in support of the petitioner's appeal before the CA. These grounds and arguments have already been threshed out, discussed, and disposed by the CA, which affirmed the petitioner's conviction. It is well settled that appellate courts generally do not disturb the findings of the trial court with regard to the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, 5 the reason being that the trial court has the opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and "note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination." 6 Further, the CA affirmed the trial court's evaluation. Hence, the burden is on the appellant to show this Court that facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted, when duly considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case differently. 7 Appellant, however, has presented no cogent reason for this Court to reverse the findings of the trial and appellate courts. EATCcI

As found by both the CA and the RTC, the testimonies of the prosecution sufficiently establish all the elements of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. At this point, it is well to emphasize that the offense of illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum punished as it is by a special law and, in order that one may be found guilty of this offense, 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. 8

In the absence of any proof that all prosecution witnesses were impelled by any ill motive or odious intent to impute falsely such a serious crime on petitioner, the witnesses' testimonies are entitled to full weight and credit 9 and debunk the inherently weak defenses of denial and frame-up of the accused. Indeed, petitioner's defense and denial cannot stand against the positive testimony of the arresting officers 10 who were one in claiming that they saw petitioner carrying the gun loaded with live ammunition.

As to the modification made by the CA in the penalty imposed, the appellate court is correct in imposing a penalty one (1) degree higher given the clear provisions of the law, viz.:

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 x x x.

The application by the CA of the ISL in imposing the penalty is likewise warranted. 11 This Court has repeatedly held that the ISL applies to offenses punished by both the RPC and special laws. 12 And if the special penal law adopts the nomenclature of the penalties under the RPC, the ascertainment of the indeterminate sentence will be based on the rules applied for those crimes punishable under the RPC. 13

Applying the foregoing to the instant case, the CA correctly adjusted the indeterminate period of imprisonment imposed on Ramos to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum in its medium period, as the maximum of the indeterminate sentence.

The RTC's conviction of petitioner, as modified by the CA Decision, must therefore be sustained.

WHEREFORE, We DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the March 22, 2017 Decision and September 14, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38439. (Martires, J., on leave)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.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;

2. (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;

3. Approved on May 29, 2013.

4. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Renato C. Francisco, Eleventh Division.

5.People v. Malana, G.R. No. 185716, September 29, 2010, 631 SCRA 676; People v. Alverio, G.R. No. 194259, March 16, 2011, 645 SCRA 658.

6.People v. Malate, G.R. No. 185724, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 817, 825.

7.People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 184958, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 280, 288; Gerasta v. People, G.R. No. 176981, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 503, 512.

8.Peralta y Zareno v. People, G.R. No. 221991, August 30, 2017, citing Fajardo v. People, 654 Phil. 184, 203 (2011), citing People v. De Gracia, G.R. Nos. 102009-10, July 6, 1994, 233 SCRA 716, 726-727.

9.People v. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012, 680 SCRA 386; People v. Emoy, 395 Phil. 371, 384 (2000).

10.People v. Gingos, G.R. No. 176632, September 11, 2007, 532 SCRA 670, 683.

11. Act No. 4103, Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (As amended by Act No. 4225) (Underscoring supplied)

12.Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 209387, [January 11, 2016.]

13.Peralta y Zareno v. People, G.R. No. 221991, [August 30, 2017] citing Mabunot v. People, G.R. No. 204659, September 19, 2016, citing People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 555, 580-581.