July 1910 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > July 1910 Decisions >
G.R. No. 5807 July 27, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO SAMSON
016 Phil 323:
016 Phil 323:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 5807. July 27, 1910. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO SAMSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Aurelio Cecilio, for Appellant.
Acting Attorney-General Harvey, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS; "ANIMUS POSSIDENDI." — A person who merely carries a gun in obedience to an order from the owner who holds a proper license for the weapon is not guilty of the crime of having illegal possession of arms. In the absence of animus possidendi the possession he has is that of the owner.
D E C I S I O N
ARELLANO, C.J. :
On the 9th of July, 1908, while Ricardo Samson was walking through a street of the town of Santa Rosa, Province of Nueva Ecija, with a shotgun and nine cartridges in his custody, the gun and the ammunition were seized by some municipal policemen.
The Court of First Instance of the said province sentenced him to pay a fine of P50, or to subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency, at the rate of one day for each P2.50, and costs.
It was proved that the defendant, while traveling on foot, was carrying a shotgun that belonged to Pablo Padilla. It was also shown that Pablo Padilla had a proper permit to possess the arm, and that the defendant was carrying the gun at the time because Pablo Padilla has sent him on ahead with it, as the latter was going on foot and the former was to follow him on horseback, to hunt.
"But had you arranged with him to meet him somewhere?" asked the fiscal.
"Answer. Yes, sir.
"Q. At the place where he was apprehended?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. Does the shotgun that was taken by the police from the possession of Samson belong to you?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. Is the permit in your name?
"A. Yes, sir, the permit so states.
"The FISCAL. That is all."cralaw virtua1aw library
The custody which the defendant Samson had of the arm was not with the intention of possessing it. Carrying a gun by order of the owner does not constitute illegal possession of firearms. The defendant is acquitted of the charge.
The judgment appealed from is reversed, with the costs of both instances de oficio. So ordered.
Torres, Johnson, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.
The Court of First Instance of the said province sentenced him to pay a fine of P50, or to subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency, at the rate of one day for each P2.50, and costs.
It was proved that the defendant, while traveling on foot, was carrying a shotgun that belonged to Pablo Padilla. It was also shown that Pablo Padilla had a proper permit to possess the arm, and that the defendant was carrying the gun at the time because Pablo Padilla has sent him on ahead with it, as the latter was going on foot and the former was to follow him on horseback, to hunt.
"But had you arranged with him to meet him somewhere?" asked the fiscal.
"Answer. Yes, sir.
"Q. At the place where he was apprehended?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. Does the shotgun that was taken by the police from the possession of Samson belong to you?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. Is the permit in your name?
"A. Yes, sir, the permit so states.
"The FISCAL. That is all."cralaw virtua1aw library
The custody which the defendant Samson had of the arm was not with the intention of possessing it. Carrying a gun by order of the owner does not constitute illegal possession of firearms. The defendant is acquitted of the charge.
The judgment appealed from is reversed, with the costs of both instances de oficio. So ordered.
Torres, Johnson, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.
