February 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 185047 : February 04, 2009] MARISSA LICUP Y LUCENTE V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES:
[G.R. No. 185047 : February 04, 2009]
MARISSA LICUP Y LUCENTE V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 04 February 2009:
G.R. No. 185047 (Marissa Licup y Lucente v. People of the Philippines).�Petitioner was charged with violating Presidential Decree No. 1866[1] after police officers conducted a search of the petitioner's house and a total of fifteen (15) firearms and eighteen (18) ammunitions were surrendered and seized by said police officers. After verification, it was found that three (3) of the firearms and one (1) piece ammunition were without license. Petitioner was also found not licensed to possess firearms of whatever nature.
In her defense, petitioner challenged the validity of the search warrant for being vague and denied liability averring that the firearms and ammunitions were found inside her deceased father's office, the Lucente Security Agency. She claimed to be merely the logistics and finance officer of the agency which is run by her mother.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the search warrant in order. It further found that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the offense charged. Petitioner did not present evidence to prove that indeed it was the agency and not she that was the possessor or owner of the seized items. It thus upheld the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses whose credibility remained intact over her barren denials. The RTC convicted petitioner of the crime charged and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum or imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years and to pay a fine of P30,000.00.[2] The bond she posted as well as the contraband seized were ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision.[3]
Petitioner now comes to us for redress via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced, this Court resolves to DENY the instant petition for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the assailed decision to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The Court AFFIRMS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 17 October 2008 of the Court of Appeals in C.A. GR. CR. No. 29471.
G.R. No. 185047 (Marissa Licup y Lucente v. People of the Philippines).�Petitioner was charged with violating Presidential Decree No. 1866[1] after police officers conducted a search of the petitioner's house and a total of fifteen (15) firearms and eighteen (18) ammunitions were surrendered and seized by said police officers. After verification, it was found that three (3) of the firearms and one (1) piece ammunition were without license. Petitioner was also found not licensed to possess firearms of whatever nature.
In her defense, petitioner challenged the validity of the search warrant for being vague and denied liability averring that the firearms and ammunitions were found inside her deceased father's office, the Lucente Security Agency. She claimed to be merely the logistics and finance officer of the agency which is run by her mother.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the search warrant in order. It further found that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the offense charged. Petitioner did not present evidence to prove that indeed it was the agency and not she that was the possessor or owner of the seized items. It thus upheld the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses whose credibility remained intact over her barren denials. The RTC convicted petitioner of the crime charged and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum or imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years and to pay a fine of P30,000.00.[2] The bond she posted as well as the contraband seized were ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision.[3]
Petitioner now comes to us for redress via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced, this Court resolves to DENY the instant petition for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the assailed decision to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The Court AFFIRMS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 17 October 2008 of the Court of Appeals in C.A. GR. CR. No. 29471.
Very truly yours.
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE. DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION, OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES.
[2] In a Decision dated 1 September 2004 of Presiding Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umali of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 47 in Criminal Case No. 97-15700.
[3] In a Decision dated 17 October 2008 of the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila in CA. GR. CR. No. 29471 penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Mendoza and Sesinando E. Villon.
