SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-5807 July 27, 1910
UNITED STATES vs. RICARDO SAMSON -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5807 July 27, 1910

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RICARDO SAMSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Aurelio Cecilio, for appellant.
Acting Attorney-General harvey, for appellee.

ARELLANO, C.J.: chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The Court of the First Instance of the said province sentenced him to pay a fine of P50, or to a subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency, at the rate of one day for each P2.50, and costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It was proved that the defendant, while travelling on foot, was carrying a shotgun that belong to Pablo Padilla. It was also shown that Pablo Padilla had a proper permit to possess the arm, that the defendant was carrying the gun at the time because Pablo Padilla had 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Answer. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q.       At the place where he was apprehended?chanrobles virtual law library

A.       Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q.       Does the shotgun that was taken by the police from the possession of Samson belong to you?chanrobles virtual law library

A.       Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q.       Is the permit in your name?chanrobles virtual law library

A.       Yes, sir, the permit so states.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

THE FISCAL. That is all.

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The judgment appealed from is reversed, with the costs of both instances de oficio. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Torres, Johnson, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.