SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256965. July 18, 2022.]
RANIE TAGARA y BUENDIA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 18, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256965 (Ranie Tagara y Buendia, petitionerv. People of the Philippines, respondent). —The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's motion for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari. 1
After a judicious study of the case, the Court further resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision 2 dated July 10, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 42987, for failure of petitioner Ranie Tagara y Buendia (Tagara) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming his conviction for violation of Section 3 (dd), in relation to Section 28 (a) and (e) (1) of Republic Act No. (RA) 10591, 3 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act."
The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms are: (1) the existence of subject firearm; and (2) the fact that the accused who possessed the same does not have the corresponding license for it. 4
In this case, the courts a quo correctly found Tagara to be in possession of the subject firearm which was confiscated by the police officers upon responding to a call for disturbance committed by the former. The record further show that Tagara is devoid of the license necessary to possess the subject firearm. This is supported by the Firearms Holder Verification Report issued by the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office which was not contested by Tagara. As such, the CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming the ruling of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Branch 1, finding Tagara guilty of violation of RA 10591.
Moreover, Tagara's claim of absence of animus possidendi is without merit. In establishing animus possidendi, it is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously, without regard to any criminal intent the accused may have harbored in possessing the firearm. Concomitantly, temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless possession of a firearm negates the presence of intent to possess. 5
In the present petition, Tagara avers that the circumstance of his alcohol intoxication coupled with his voluntary surrender of the firearm translates to his lack of intent to possess the same.
The Court is not convinced.
It is well to note that Tagara's voluntary surrender of the subject article to the police officers is not tantamount to absence of animus possidendi. In this case, Tagara freely and consciously possessed the subject article as shown by the fact that he carried the same inside his bag at the time the incident happened. Moreover, Tagara's possession of the gun is not merely temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless. In fact, he was unruly at the time the police officers witnessed him holding the gun, thus negating any finding of harmless or incidental possession. Given the foregoing, the argument of Tagara necessarily fails.
However, there is a need to modify the sentence to be imposed on Tagara. Under Section 28 (a) of RA 10591, "[t]he penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed on any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm." Relatedly, Section 28 (e) (1) of the same law instructs that the penalty of one (1) degree higher than what is prescribed under Section 28 (a) to (c) shall be imposed on those who unlawfully possess a firearm that is loaded with ammunition. Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and further considering the absence of any modifying circumstances, Tagara should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 10, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42987 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION finding petitioner Ranie Tagara y Buendia GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Republic Act No. 10591. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period 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 rest of the assailed Court of Appeals ruling STANDS.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 8-19.
2. Id. at 26-36. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
3. Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF," approved on May 29, 2013.
4. Jacaban v. People of the Philippines, 756 Phil. 523 (2015); Evangelista v. People of the Philippines, 634 Phil. 207 (2010).
5. People v. De Gracia, 304 Phil. 118 (1994).