G.R. No. 156320 - Abenes y Gacutan vs. Court of Appeals

Criminal Case No. 4559-98 for Illegal Possession of High Powered Firearm and Ammunition under Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294.
Criminal Case No. 4563-98 for violation of Section 261(q) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code), in relation to COMELEC Resolution No. 2958 (Gun Ban) during the election period.

Incident occurred on May 8, 1998, at around 10:30 a.m. in Barangay Danlugan, Pagadian City. Petitioner was allegedly carrying:

A police checkpoint was established on May 8, 1998, at Barangay Danlugan to enforce the COMELEC gun ban during the election period.
The police team, led by SPO3 Cipriano Q. Pascua, stopped a red Tamaraw FX vehicle where petitioner was one of eight passengers.
Police requested occupants to alight; petitioner was seen with a visible holstered firearm on his right waist.
Upon inquiry, petitioner claimed to have a license but failed to produce any documentation. The firearm and ammunition were confiscated and petitioner was brought to the police headquarters for investigation.
Certification from the Firearms and Explosives License Processing Section showed petitioner was not a registered licensed firearm holder as of May 18, 1998.

Petitioner denied ownership of the firearm, claiming it was found inside a clutch bag on the vehicle floor, allegedly left by an unidentified person who hitched a ride and alighted before the checkpoint.
Petitioner claimed that the firearm was not recovered from his person but from the vehicle.

The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt on both charges, ruling that the testimonies of police officers who saw the firearm on petitioner’s person were credible.
The RTC sentenced petitioner to prison and ordered forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the checkpoint was invalid, the search violated his constitutional rights, and the defense version was more credible.
The CA affirmed the RTC decision with modification on the penalty for the illegal possession charge.

The Supreme Court reviewed the case on certiorari, with petitioner raising issues about the legality of the checkpoint, violation of rights against unlawful search and seizure, credibility of evidence, and sufficiency of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the checkpoint was validly established under the circumstances and evidence presented.
Whether the petitioner’s constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure were violated during the inspection and firearm confiscation.
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in adopting the trial court’s findings of fact, despite claimed inconsistencies and contradictions in evidence.
Whether petitioner is entitled to acquittal based on reasonable doubt regarding the actual possession of the firearm, i.e., whether the gun was taken from petitioner’s person or from the vehicle floor.