Facts:

The case involves Ely Agustin, the petitioner, against the People of the Philippines, the respondent, with the Supreme Court of the Philippines deciding on April 30, 2008. The events leading to the case began on the evening of October 1, 1995, when armed robbers invaded the home of spouses George and Rosemarie Gante in Barangay Pug-os, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur. They reported the robbery to the local police, who swiftly sought a search warrant from the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabugao. The MTC issued Search Warrant No. 5-95, authorizing the search of various locations, including the residence of Ely Agustin, who was identified as a suspect in the robbery.

On October 6, 1995, law enforcement officers executed the search warrant at Agustin's residence in Sitio Padual, Barangay Pug-os. During the search, they located a caliber .38 revolver and five live bullets, which Agustin possessed without the necessary license, prompting authorities to file a criminal case for illegal pos

...

Facts:

The Incident and Investigation

• On October 1, 1995, at 7:20 p.m., armed men perpetrated a robbery at the residence of spouses George and Rosemarie Gante in Barangay Pug-os, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur.
• The robbery involved the forcible removal of several valuables, including cash amounting to P600,000.00, prompting the victims to immediately report the incident to the police.
• The police, acting promptly, applied for and obtained a search warrant from the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur (Search Warrant No. 5-95) aimed at recovering the stolen items and identifying any firearms used in the crime.

The Search and Discovery at the Petitioner’s Residence

• One of the target locations specified in the warrant was the residence of petitioner Ely Agustin, who was named as one of the suspects.
• On October 6, 1995, law enforcement officers, armed with the warrant, conducted a search at petitioner’s house located in Sitio Padual, Barangay Pug-os, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur.
• During the search, a .38 caliber revolver along with five live ammunitions was reportedly recovered from a closed cabinet in the house.
• The recovered firearm was unlicensed and was considered as evidence in the filing of Criminal Case No. 1651-K for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms).

The Prosecution’s Evidence and Witness Testimonies

• The prosecution presented a roster of eight witnesses including:
• P/Insp. Anselmo Baldovino – the investigating officer and the applicant for the search warrant.
• Rosemarie Gante – the victim and complainant.
• Ignacio Yabes – a Municipal Local Government Operations Officer who observed the search.
• P/Supt. Bonifacio Abian – Deputy Provincial Director of the Philippine National Police and a member of the search team.
• SPO4 Marino Peneyra, SPO1 Franklin Cabaya, SPO1 James Jara, and SPO2 Florentino Renon – police personnel whose testimonies centered on the search operation.
• Testimony Specifics:
• SPO1 Cabaya testified that he personally discovered the firearm inside a closed, rattan cabinet located in the kitchen near the door. He further stated that he retrieved the weapon and showed it to SPO1 Jara, who was reportedly standing one meter behind him.
• There were claims regarding the number of police officers present in the house. While Cabaya mentioned that five officers entered, he could not recall all names and detailed roles.
• Subsequent testimonies from other officers, including SPO1 Jara, P/Insp. Baldovino, P/Supt. Abian, SPO4 Peneyra, and SPO2 Renon, provided differing accounts regarding who entered the house, who discovered the firearm, and the exact location and conditions under which the gun was found.

The Defense’s Position

• Petitioner Ely Agustin, along with his wife Lorna Agustin, asserted a denial of ownership of the firearm and alleged that the weapon was planted by law enforcement officers.
• Lorna Agustin testified that she witnessed a “military” man planting the firearm at their residence, thus supporting the claim of frame-up.
• The defense argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were marred by material and irreconcilable inconsistencies, and these contradictions should have been sufficient to raise serious doubt regarding petitioner’s guilt.

Trial Court and Appellate Proceedings

• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur rendered a decision on July 7, 1999, convicting petitioner Ely Agustin beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of a firearm, sentencing him to a prison term ranging from four years and two months to a maximum of six years, along with a fine and other penalties.
• Petitioner appealed the RTC decision with the Court of Appeals (CA), which on January 22, 2003, affirmed the RTC decision with a modification in the maximum prison term imposed.
• The petitioner later elevated his case through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, contending that the lower courts erred in accepting the prosecution’s evidence despite its internal contradictions and in disregarding the defense’s claim of frame-up.

Issue:

Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a firearm was found in petitioner Ely Agustin’s residence.

• The issue revolves around the conflicting accounts provided by the prosecution witnesses regarding:
• The persons who entered the house.
• The location and manner in which the firearm was discovered.
• The role of each officer, particularly SPO1 Cabaya’s claim versus the accounts of his colleagues.

Whether the lower courts committed reversible error by giving undue weight to the testimonies of the police officers and ignoring the defense’s substantial allegation of frame-up.

• An important aspect is if the inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses undermined the overall credibility of their evidence.
• The issue also examines if the trial court improperly discounted the defense’s evidence—a denial of possession and an assertion that the gun was planted.

• Whether the prosecution failed to discharge its burden by relying on inherently contradictory and inconsistent evidence, thereby upholding the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)