Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1971 > October 1971 Decisions > G.R. No. L-29570 October 29, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE SOLLANO, JR., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-29570. October 29, 1971.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENRIQUE SOLLANO, JR., NEPOMUCENO LAUDE, ROMULO TUMULAK, RODULFO TUMULAK, PINIONG LAUDE ALIAS EUFEMIO TITO AND ATING LAUM, JR., Defendants, ENRIQUE SOLLANO, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar and Solicitor Vicente A. Torres for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Hilario G. David, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL, PROCEDURE; VARIANCE BETWEEN OFFENSE CHARGED IN INFORMATION AND THAT PROVED; EFFECT OF. — If there is variance between the offense charged in the information and that which is proved, the accused may be convicted of that which is proved, if it is included in the offenses charged, and an offense proved is included in the offense charged if its essential elements or ingredients constitute the offense proved.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RULE APPLIED IN INSTANT CASE. — We agree with the Solicitor General that "illegal possession of firearms does not necessarily include illegal manufacture of firearms, yet illegal manufacture of firearms necessarily includes illegal possession of firearms" ; "that one who is found liable for illegal manufacture of firearms cannot at the same time be held liable for illegal possession of firearms, since the possession is inherent in manufacturing, yet nothing prevents an accused from being round guilty of illegal possession of firearms but not of illegally manufacturing the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT OF TRIAL, COURT; NOT SUBJECT TO SUPREME COURT REVIEW IN DIRECT APPEALS. — The rule that an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review is invoked by the People, as justification for its prayer that the Supreme Court review the findings of fact of the trial court, allegedly for the reason that the original charge of illegal manufacture of firearms is sustained by the evidence. This cannot be done because this is a direct appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance and the Supreme Court has no appellate jurisdiction to review findings of fact in criminal cases, except in cases of automatic review where the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment. The cited rule has to yield to the lack of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction to review findings of fact in direct appeals.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Direct appeal, on pure questions of law, interposed by the above-named accused-appellant Enrique Sollano, Jr., against a judgment by the Court of First Instance of Cebu, in its Criminal Case No. V-8955, convicting him of illegal possession of firearms, and imposing the penalty of one (1) year and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months, upon an amended information which charged as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal and designated as Special Prosecutor by Administrative Order No. 113 of the Department of Justice, Manila, in accordance with the provision of Section 1686 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, accuses Enrique Sollano, Jr., Nepomuceno Laude, Romulo Tumulak, Piniong Laude, alias Eufemio Tito and Ating Laum, Jr., of the crime of Illegal Manufacture of Firearms and Spare Parts, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about 30 March 1962, and sometime before the said date, in the City of Danao and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating together and helping one another, with deliberate intent of gain, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously did then and there make and manufacture firearms of different calibers and sizes or their spare parts, and owned, possessed under their control and operate tools, implements and machineries used in the manufacture of firearms or spare parts, and after having finished the firearms, did then and there sell and dispose same to unauthorized persons for gain and profit without previously securing the necessary permit from the proper authorities to manufacture, make or deal in firearms for the purpose as provided by existing laws and regulations on the matter."cralaw virtua1aw library

Appellant’s co-accused were all acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The facts upon which appellant Enrique Sollano, Jr., was convicted for illegal possession of firearms may be briefly stated, as follows.

The Criminal Investigation Service of the Philippine Constabulary had received reports that firearms were being illegally manufactured in Danao City. Hence, an agent of the Service, one Nicanor Baring, was sent there by his chief, Major Jose Nazareno, to verify the information. Major Nazareno gave Baring money with which to purchase firearms. After mingling with the inhabitants of the place for sometime, Baring earned the confidence of appellant Enrique Sollano, Jr. On 15 March 162, he bought from appellant three (3) revolvers and had allegedly observed the shop where the weapons were manufactured.

Baring returned to his unit with the information he had gathered and the three (3) revolvers he had purchased. So, Major Nazareno decided to raid the shop. Before carrying out his plan, he sent Baring ahead to pretend to buy two (2) more revolvers. When Major Nazareno and his men, in a civilian truck labelled "Excursionist" arrived at the vicinity of the shop, on 30 March 1962, all the accused scampered away. At that time, Baring was testing the two (2) revolvers; Major Nazareno pretended to arrest him. The raiding party confiscated some paraphernalia allegedly used in the manufacture of firearms.

The five (5) revolvers were exhibited in court as Exhibits "A" to "E," and the trial court, finding them to be the ones sold by appellant Sollano, Jr., to agent Baring, convicted said appellant, not for manufacturing the said firearms but for illegal possession thereof.

The issues in this case are: (a) whether or not an accused can be convicted of illegal possession of firearms under an information for unlawful manufacture of firearms; and (b) whether or not evidence offered to prove unlawful manufacture of firearms can be the basis of conviction for illegal possession of firearms. 1 The aforesaid two issues may be merged into the single issue as to whether or not illegal possession is an ingredient or forms a part constituting unlawful manufacture of firearms. For if there is variance between the offense charged in the information and that which is proved, the accused may be convicted of that which is proved, if it is included in the offense charged, 2 and an offense proved is included in the offense charged if its essential elements or ingredients constitute the offense proved. 3

We agree with the Solicitor-General that "illegal possession of firearms does not necessarily include illegal manufacture of firearms, yet illegal manufacture of firearms necessarily includes illegal possession of firearms" ; "that one found liable for illegal manufacture of firearms can not at the same time be held liable for illegal possession of firearms, since the possession is inherent in manufacturing, yet nothing prevents an accused from being found guilty of illegal possession of firearms but not of illegally manufacturing the same" (Brief, page 5)

But appellant tenders another angle in the present case. He claims that in another case he has been separately charged for illegal possession of firearms in the same Court of First Instance of Cebu, in its Criminal Case No. V-8961, involving the same firearms, marked as Exhibits "A" to "E" in Criminal Case No. V-8955 (the instant case on appeal). There is no record in the present case of the other alleged proceeding but assuming the existence there of, its institution and pendency is no bar to appellant’s conviction in the case at bar for illegal possession of firearms; and whether or not his present conviction would be a block to the continuance of the other case is a question that may be ventilated there.

The rule that an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review is invoked by the People 4 , as justification for its prayer that the Supreme Court review the findings of fact of the trial court, allegedly for the reason that the original charge of illegal manufacture of firearms is sustained by the evidence. This cannot be done because this is a direct appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance and the Supreme Court has no appellate jurisdiction to review findings of fact in criminal cases. except in cases of automatic review where the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment. 5 The cited rule has to yield to the lack of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction to review findings of fact in direct appeals.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the appealed judgment is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant Enrique Sollano, Jr.

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Both offenses are punishable by the same provision of law, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 2692. Unlawful manufacture, dealing in, acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition, therefor, or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms and ammunition. — Any person who manufactures, deals in, acquires, disposes, or possesses, any firearms, or ammunition therefor, or instrument or implement used to intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition in violation of any provision of Sections 877 to 906, inclusive, of this Code, as amended, shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for a period of not less than one year and one day nor more than five years, or both such imprisonment and a fine of not less than one thousand pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, in the discretion of the court. If the article illegally possessed is a rifle, carbine, grease gun, bazooka, machine gun, submachine gun, hand grenade, bomb, artillery or any kind of ammunition exclusively intended for such weapons, such period of imprisonment shall not be less than five years nor more than ten years. A conviction under this section shall carry with it the forfeiture of the prohibited articles to the Philippine Government.

The possession of any instrument or implement which is directly useful in the manufacture of firearms and ammunition on the part of any person whose business or employment does not deal with such instrument or implement shall be prima facie proof that such article is intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition." (Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Com. Act. No. 56 and Rep. Act No. 4.).

2. Per Sections 4 & 5, Rule 120, Rules of Court.

3. Per Sections 4 & 5, Rule 120, Rules of Court.

"SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. — Where there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved or established by the evidence, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the defendant shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged, or the offense charged included in that which is proved."cralaw virtua1aw library

"SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. — An offense necessarily includes that which is proved, when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. Citing Quemel v. CA, L-22794, 19 January 1968, 22 SCRA 45.

5. Section 17, Republic Act 296, as amended by Republic Acts 1613 and 5440.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1971 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20442 October 4, 1971 - CIRIACO ROBLES v. YAP WING

  • G.R. No. L-21289 October 4, 1971 - MOY YA LIM YAO, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-22480 October 4, 1971 - CARLOS MORAN SISON, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23559 October 4, 1971 - AURELIO G. BRIONES v. PRIMITIVO P. CAMMAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26112 October 4, 1971 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. JAIME DE LOS ANGELES

  • G.R. No. L-29025 October 4, 1971 - MOISES P. PALISOC, ET AL. v. ANTONIO C. BRILLANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29352 October 4, 1971 - EMERITO M. RAMOS, ET AL. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-30558 October 4, 1971 - RICE AND CORN ADMINISTRATION v. MARIANO ONG ANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32068 October 4, 1971 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34150 October 16, 1971 - ARTURO M. TOLENTINO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 194-J October 22, 1971 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. ABDULWAHID A. BIDIN

  • G.R. No. L-30610 October 22, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN BARTOLAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30828 October 22, 1971 - GREGORIO B. MORALEJA v. LORENZO RELOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-34164-79 October 25, 1979

    FLORENCIO BERNABE v. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13250 October 29, 1971 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANTONIO CAMPOS RUEDA

  • G.R. No. L-23444 October 29, 1971 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-24778 October 29, 1971 - WILLIAM LINES, INC. v. CLARIZA MONDRAGON SAÑOPAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24861 October 29, 1971 - ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21325 October 29, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLEO DRAMAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26519 October 29, 1971 - CARLOS CRUZ v. PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS

  • G.R. No. L-26938 October 29, 1971 - ROMAN OZAETA, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-27897-98 October 29, 1971 - LORENZO IGNACIO, ET AL. v. CFI OF BULACAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28722 October 29, 1971 - IMPERIAL INSURANCE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29570 October 29, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE SOLLANO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29190 October 29, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO GUBA

  • G.R. No. L-29666 October 29, 1971 - PEOPLES BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. JOSE MARIA TAMBUNTING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29805 October 29, 1971 - TEODORO E. LERMA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30573 October 29, 1971 - VICENTE M. DOMINGO v. GREGORIO M. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. L-30772 October 29, 1971 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. FELIX R. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30946 October 29, 1971 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLO L. MADDELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31620 October 29, 1971 - GENEROSO VILLANUEVA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. HECTOR G. MOYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32109 October 29, 1971 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME LIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32994 October 29, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO INGCO

  • G.R. No. L-33085 October 29, 1971 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. JUAN CALMA

  • G.R. No. L-33624 October 29, 1971 - PIVGETH INDUSTRIES AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. JESUS DE VEYRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-34156 to L-34158 October 29, 1971 - ALEJANDRO C. SIAZON v. PRESIDING JUDGE OF DAVAO CITY

  • G.R. No. L-34253 October 29, 1971 - LUZ BATIOCO, ET AL. v. PEDRO JR. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-26662 October 30, 1971 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO KIPTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34254 October 30, 1971 - JOSE P. BUENVIAJE, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, ET AL.