Title
Abenes y Gacutan vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 156320
Decision Date
Feb 14, 2007
Rodolfo Abenes acquitted of illegal firearm possession due to insufficient proof of lack of license but convicted for violating the election gun ban, with modified penalties and firearm confiscation.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156320)

Facts:

Background and Charges

  • Petitioner Rodolfo Abenes y Gacutan was charged with two offenses:
    1. Illegal Possession of High-Powered Firearm and Ammunition under Presidential Decree No. 1866 (P.D. No. 1866), as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, in Criminal Case No. 4559-98.
    2. Violation of Section 261(q) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) in relation to COMELEC Resolution No. 2958 (Gun Ban) in Criminal Case No. 4563-98.

Incident Details

  • On May 8, 1998, during the election period, a police checkpoint was set up in Barangay Danlugan, Pagadian City, to enforce the COMELEC-imposed gun ban.
  • At around 10:30 a.m., a red Tamaraw FX with tinted windows was stopped at the checkpoint. The occupants, including petitioner Rodolfo Abenes, were asked to alight for a routine inspection.
  • SPO3 Cipriano Pascua and SPO1 Eliezer Requejo noticed a holstered .45 caliber pistol tucked into Abenes' waist, which was visible as it was not covered by his shirt.
  • When asked for a license or authority to carry the firearm, Abenes claimed he had one but failed to produce any documentation. The firearm, a Norinco .45 caliber pistol with seven live ammunitions, was confiscated.
  • A certification from the PNP Firearms and Explosives License Processing Section confirmed that Abenes was not a licensed firearm holder.

Defense’s Version

  • Abenes denied ownership of the firearm, claiming it was found inside a clutch bag left by an unidentified hitchhiker who had alighted earlier. He argued that the firearm was not recovered from his person but from the vehicle’s floor.

Trial Court Decision

  • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Abenes guilty of both charges:
    • For illegal possession of a firearm, he was sentenced to 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 8 years of imprisonment and a fine of P30,000.
    • For violating the Omnibus Election Code, he was sentenced to 1 year of imprisonment, disqualification from holding public office, and deprivation of the right to suffrage.

Court of Appeals Decision

  • The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision but modified the penalty for illegal possession of a firearm to 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 7 years and 4 months of imprisonment.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Plain View Doctrine: The firearm was seized lawfully under the plain view doctrine, as it was visibly tucked into Abenes’ waist and discovered inadvertently during a lawful checkpoint inspection.
  2. Burden of Proof in Illegal Possession Cases: In cases of illegal possession of firearms, the prosecution must prove two elements: (a) the existence of the firearm, and (b) the lack of a license or permit to possess it. The prosecution failed to prove the second element beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. Burden of Proof in Election Offenses: Under the Omnibus Election Code, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that they have written authority from the COMELEC to carry a firearm during the election period. Abenes failed to provide such authority.
  4. Indeterminate Sentence Law: The Court modified the penalty for the election offense to comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing a sentence of 1 year as minimum to 2 years as maximum.
  5. Confiscation of Firearm: The firearm was ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government, as it was an instrument of the crime.

Disposition

  • The Supreme Court partially granted the petition:
    • Acquitted Abenes in Criminal Case No. 4559-98 (illegal possession of firearm).
    • Affirmed with modifications the conviction in Criminal Case No. 4563-98 (violation of the Omnibus Election Code), imposing an indeterminate sentence of 1 year to 2 years of imprisonment, disqualification from public office, and deprivation of the right to suffrage.
    • The firearm was confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.