ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 118078. July 15, 1997]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OSCAR VILLANUEVA, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
FRANCISCO, J.:
The five (5) accused namely Reynaldo Bartolata alias Tilo, Oscar Villanueva, Johnny Sola alias Tangane, Dagoy Sola and Bobong Sola1 were charged with the crime of illegal possession of firearms allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about April 13, 1993, in the afternoon thereof, at
Sitio Toquip, Barangay Jagnaan, Municipality of San Jacinto, Province of
Masbate, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession
and control three (3) lantakas and one (1) sumpak, without first having
obtained the necessary permit and license from the competent authority.2chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Of the five accused mentioned above, only Reynaldo Bartolata and Oscar Villanueva were apprehended by the police authorities while the Sola brothers, Johnny, Dagoy and Bobong are at large up to the present.3 At the arraignment, Bartolata and Villanueva pleaded not guilty to the crime charged against them. Trial ensued during which the prosecution presented SPO4 Pascual Delavin, Bgy. Captain Jose Nuez, and Bgy. Tanod Chief Gomez Samson as witnesses. From their testimonies may be culled the following factual antecedents of the instant case:
Sometime in March of 1993, Jose Nuez, the Barangay Captain of
Danao, San Jacinto, Masbate made a report to the Chief/Station Commander of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) of San Jacinto, Masbate regarding the presence
of persons who were seen carrying arms and roaming around the vicinity of
Danao.4
On April 13, 1993, the Station Commander of the PNP ordered a team of six (6)
policemen headed by SPO4 Pascual Delavin to proceed to Barangay Danao to verify
the said report.5
When they reached Barangay Danao, SPO4 Delavin requested Barangay Tanod Gomez
Samson to guide them around the area as the Barangay Captain was then in
Masbate.6
Not finding the malefactors in Danao, they moved on to Sitio Toquip in the
neighboring Barangay of Jagna-an. Along the trail to Sitio Toquip, they
encountered the five (5) accused who were all armed. Bartolata, Villanueva and
Johnny Sola were each carrying a homemade gun, locally known as lantaka7
while Dagoy Sola was armed with a shorter homemade gun locally known as
sumpak,8
and recovered from Bobong Sola was a bolo.
When asked to surrender, accused Bartolata and Villanueva laid down
their arms and surrendered to the team of SPO4 Delavin, but the other accused
immediately fled the scene of the crime and were able to evade apprehension.9chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In their defense, accused Villanueva and Bartolata denied the
charges against them and pleaded their respective alibis.
According to Villanueva, he was at their farm
in Sitio Toquip on April 13, 1993, at around 3:00 oclock in the afternoon when
a certain Toti Almoradie arrived and asked him of the whereabouts of the Sola
brothers.10
Later, seven (7) policemen also arrived and inquired about the location of the
house of Bartolata.
He informed the
policemen that the house of Bartolata was situated in Danao, San Jacinto,
Masbate.
The policemen then requested
him to accompany them to the house of Bartolata in Danao.
Upon reaching the house of Bartolata, the
policemen started firing their guns, and from a distance of about eight (8)
arms length, Villanueva saw that the policemen had tied Bartolatas hands
behind his back and that one of them, later identified as Patrolman Relente
boxed Bartolata.
Thereafter, the
policemen ordered both Villanueva and Bartolata to go with them to San Jacinto.
On the way to San Jacinto, the group
passed by a house and one of the policemen asked Villanueva who the owner of
the said house was. When Villanueva replied that it is his house, the policemen
showed him three (3) lantakas and a sumpak11 and
told him: Maybe you own these guns because we took them from your house.12
Villanueva persistently denied ownership of the guns. However, during
cross-examination, he pointed out that the homemade guns could have been left
in his house by Johnny Sola without his knowledge as his house was often left
unoccupied.13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
For his part, accused Bartolata claimed that on the said date and
time of the incident he was with his wife, Josefa Villanueva, in their house in
Sitio Toquip in Barangay Jagna-an, San Jacinto, Masbate.
He was roofing their house when Toti
Almoradie and Patrolman Relente arrived. The two went upstairs and Relente allegedly tied Bartolatas hands
behind his back then boxed and even kicked him. On the other hand, Toti took
the bolo which Bartolata was using in roofing the house and gave the same to
Relente.
The mauling of Bartolata
continued despite Josefas pleas for Relente to stop beating her husband.14
The latter lost consciousness and when he came to he was already in the house
of Oscar Villanueva who was also picked up by the police.15chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On July 27, 1994, Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of San
Jacinto, Masbate rendered a decision finding both accused Reynaldo Bartolata
and Oscar Villanueva guilty of Illegal Possession of Firearms penalized under
Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866.16 In
convicting the accused, the trial court relied on the time honored doctrine
that positive identification of the accused and positive testimonies as in the
instant case should prevail over the formers alibi and denials of the
commission of the crime for which they are charged since great weight is
generally accorded to the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses than
the accuseds denial.17
Giving full faith and credit to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
the trial court likewise cited the failure of the defense to ascribe to the
former any improper or ulterior motive for testifying against the accused.18
Furthermore, while the trial court found the prosecution witnesses to be
consistent and credible in their testimonies that the accused were caught in flagrante
delicto,19
it noted that the testimonies of the defense witnesses are inconsistent,
incredible and not worthy of belief.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Accused Bartolata died after the promulgation of the decision in the trial court, hence only accused Villanueva was able to interpose this appeal before us raising the following lone assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS (VIOL. OF P.D. 1866) DESPITE
THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND THE INADMISSIBLE
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, BEING THE FRUIT OF ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.21chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In seeking to uphold the conviction of Villanueva, the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) countered with its arguments that: (1) Findings of
the trial court on credibility of witnesses are given great weight by appellate
courts,22
and (2) The arrest of the appellant in flagrante delicto was lawful
under Section 5 [a] of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.23chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
After a careful review of the records of this case, we find the evidence presented by the prosecution to be insufficient to convict accused-appellant Oscar Villanueva of the crime of illegal possession of firearm.
In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution has the burden of proving the elements thereof, viz: (a) the existence of the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess the same.24 The latter is a negative fact which constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession, and it is the duty of the prosecution not only to allege it but also to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.25 It is this duty that the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge in the case at bench. We searched the records for any evidence, either testimonial or documentary, to prove the non-possession by the accused-appellant of the requisite license or permit and found none. The prosecution had apparently omitted presenting this very vital piece of evidence, and the trial court, either by inadvertence or ignorance, gave it nary a thought and proceeded to convict the accused. It is this very same fatal flaw that led us to reverse the conviction of Nilo Solayao for possession of a 49-inch long homemade firearm, locally known as latong, in the case of People vs. Solayao.26 We said there that:
while the prosecution was able to establish the fact that the subject firearm was seized by the police from the possession of appellant, without the latter being able to present any license or permit to possess the same, such fact alone is not conclusive proof that he was not lawfully authorized to carry such firearm. In other words, such fact does not relieve the prosecution from its duty to establish the lack of a license or permit to carry the firearm by clear and convincing evidence, like a certification from the government agency concerned.
Putting it differently,
when a negative is averred in a pleading, or a plaintiffs case depends upon
the establishment of a negative, and the means of proving the fact are equally
within the control of each party, then the burden of proof is upon the party
averring the negative.27chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
As we have previously held, the testimony of a representative of,
or a certification from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit that the
accused-appellant was not a licensee of the said firearm would have sufficed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of the crime of illegal
possession.
The foregoing cannot be
dispensed with and its absence renders the accused-appellants conviction
erroneous.28chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In view of the foregoing, we deem it unnecessary to delve into the merits of the accused-appellants assignment of error and the OSGs arguments in rebuttal of the same.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the court a quo is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Oscar Villanueva is hereby ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence and ordered immediately released unless there are other legal grounds for his continued detention.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 The name Bobong Sola was inadvertently omitted from the information.
2 INFORMATION, June 14, 1993; Rollo, p. 4.
3 DECISION in Criminal Case No. 521 promulgated on July 27, 1994, p.1; Rollo, p. 13.
4 TSN, Nuez, August 26, 1993, pp. 3-4.
5 TSN, Delavin, August 18, 1993, p. 6.
6 Ibid., pp. 7-8; TSN, Samson, October 12, 1993, p. 4.
7 Exhibit A for the prosecution is the homemade gun recovered from Reynaldo Bartolata measuring about one (1) meter in length; Exhibit B for the prosecution is the homemade gun recovered from Oscar Villanueva measuring one (1) foot in length; and Exhibit C is the homemade gun recovered from Johnny Sola measuring about one and one-half meters (1 1/2) in length.
8 Exhibit D for the prosecution.
9 TSN, supra, pp. 9-12.
10 TSN, Villanueva, February 18, 1994, p.4.
11 Ibid., pp. 6-9.
12 Ibid., p. 9.
13 Ibid., p.20.
14 TSN, Bartolata, March 17, 1994, pp. 3-6.
15 Ibid., pp. 7-8.
16 DECISION, supra, p. 7; Rollo, p.19. They were each sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period of seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to Reclusion Perpetua.
17 Ibid., pp. 5-6 citing People vs. Edwin Belibet, et al., G.R. No. 91260, July 25, 1991; Rollo, pp. 17-18.
18 Ibid., p.5; Rollo, p.17.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid., p.6; Rollo, p.18.
21 APPELLANTS BRIEF, p. 1; Rollo, p. 38.
22 BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE, p.6; Rollo, p. 84b.
23 Ibid., p.8; Rollo, p. 85b.
24 People vs. Mallari, G.R. No. 110569, December 9, 1996; People vs. Lualhati, 234 SCRA 325 [1994]; People vs. Ramos, 222 SCRA 557[1993]; People vs. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547 [1992].
25 People vs. Mallari, ibid.; People vs. Tiozon, 198 SCRA 368 [1991].
26 G.R. No. 119220, September 20, 1996.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.; People vs. Mallari, supra.