FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238670. July 11, 2018.]
JOSEPH SANTIAGO y PANAHON, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 11, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238670 — Joseph Santiago y Panahon v. People of the Philippines
This Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on May 3, 2018 within which to file said Petition for Review on Certiorari.
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 October 20, 2017 Decision and March 22, 2018 Resolution in CA G.R. CR No. 39321.
The present petition directly raises, as an issue, the propriety of the affirmance by the CA of the trial court's Decision that found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 28 (a), in relation to Section 28 (e) (1), of Republic Act (RA) No. 10591, or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act. According to the petitioner, his warrantless arrest was illegal and that the firearm and live ammunitions allegedly seized from him were inadmissible in evidence. While the determination of the issues may involve the application of law, their resolution also requires this Court to review and assess the evidence existing on record. It is worth stressing that a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited only to questions of law. Factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari and it is not the duty of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below. This Court therefore finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court which were affirmed by the CA.
Moreover, 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 at this stage, as the same should have been raised in a motion to quash the Information filed prior to his arraignment and entry of plea. 1 In this case, petitioner did not file such motion. Thus, any objection on the legality of his arrest was deemed waived. 2
In any event, petitioner's arrest was reasonable and valid. PO2 Marilito Batica Daya (PO2 Daya) and PO1 Jake Lattao (PO1 Lattao) were dispatched to verify a reliable report that a person wearing a yellow shirt and ostensibly armed with a firearm was roaming the vicinity of Villalobos corner Carlos Palanca Streets, Manila. Upon their arrival, they saw petitioner as the only person wearing a yellow shirt; they also immediately noticed from his appearance a bulge on the right side of his waist. They approached petitioner and introduced themselves as police officers and saw the handle of a gun when they requested him to pull-up his shirt. These series of events formed sufficient basis on the part of PO2 Daya and PO1 Lattao to believe that a crime was actually being committed. Thus, petitioner's case was an exception to the rule that requires a warrant of arrest. 3
In any case, petitioner had failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in affirming the trial court's Decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e) (1), of RA No. 10591. The elements of the offense of illegal possession of firearm 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. 4
Here, it is undisputed that the first element was established. Petitioner was caught in possession of a paltik revolver without any serial number and which was loaded with five live bullets. PO2 Daya seized, marked and turned over the same to the police investigator for proper disposition. During the trial, PO2 Daya identified the firearm and the ammunition as well as the markings he made thereon. The second element was also established as the Certification from the Firearms and Explosives Office of the Philippine National Police stated that petitioner was not a licensed or registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber.
For the unlawful possession of the firearm, the law imposes the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period. 5 However, the penalty one degree higher shall apply since the firearm was loaded with ammunition. 6 This penalty is prision mayor in its maximum period. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the maximum imposable penalty shall be within the range of the medium term of prision mayor in its maximum period, or 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, or prision mayor in its medium period, which is from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years. Thus, the proper 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 October 20, 2017 Decision and March 22, 2018 Resolution in CA G.R. CR No. 39321 finding petitioner Joseph Santiago y Panahon guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 28 (a), in relation to Section 28 (e) (1) of Republic Act No. 10591, with further 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." Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.People vs. Salvador, 708 Phil. 637, 684 (2013).
2.People vs. Tan, 649 Phil. 262, 277 (2010).
3. See Section 5 (a), Rule 113, Rules of Court.
4.People vs. PO2 Abriol, 419 Phil. 609, 636 (2001).
5. Section 28 (a) of RA 10951.
6. Section 2 (e) (1), Id.