Case Digest (G.R. No. 120650)
Facts:
Rene Botona v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 120650, February 21, 2003, the Supreme Court Second Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.On February 20, 1991, at about 9:00 p.m., Rito Bautista was at a waiting shed in Poblacion Barobo, Surigao del Sur, with friends Mayolito Cuizon and Bonifacio Fructuso when Rene Botona allegedly pointed a .38‑caliber paltik revolver at them and threatened to shoot. Bautista grappled with Botona, wrested the pistol away, then went to the police station and turned over the firearm to authorities. Cuizon corroborated Bautista’s account, and SPO3 Leo Asuncion testified that Bautista delivered the weapon to the police.
Botona allegedly returned home, obtained an M‑16 Armalite rifle, and strafed the house where Bautista lived. The police charged Botona with two counts of illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866: Criminal Case No. L‑1112 (possession of an M‑16 with magazines and live ammunition) and Criminal Case No. L‑1129 (possession of a homemade .38 revolver with ammunition). Botona pleaded not guilty to both informations.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Lianga, Surigao del Sur (Branch 28) acquitted Botona in Criminal Case No. L‑1112 for lack of proof, but convicted him in Criminal Case No. L‑1129 and sentenced him to reclusion temporal; the .38 revolver was ordered forfeited to the Government. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court “in toto.” Botona sought relief in the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the Court of Appeals decision; the petition assailed, among other things, the allocatio...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the conviction?
- Must the prosecution prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the firearm was unlicensed (i.e., the negative ingredient of illegal possession) and thus present evidence from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit (FEU)?
- Does the fact that a firearm is a homemade “paltik” dispense with the prosecution’s duty to prove that it was unlicensed?
- Was the presumption under Rule 131, Section 3(j) — that the person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the take...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)