Case Digest (G.R. No. 253930)
Facts:
Paulo Castil y Alvero v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 253930, July 13, 2022, the Supreme Court First Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Paulo Castil y Alvero was charged by Information with Illegal Possession of Firearms under Section 28, paragraphs (a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 10591 for allegedly having in his possession a Norinco 9mm pistol loaded with five live ammunitions on or about July 10, 2015 in Quezon City. He pleaded not guilty and trial followed.The prosecution’s case arose from a buy-bust operation initiated after a confidential informant implicated one Sandra Young as selling illegal drugs. Police officers organized a buy-bust with PO1 John Paul Rebustes as the poseur-buyer. The informant and Rebustes met Young and petitioner in a vehicle; after a transaction, Rebustes identified himself as a policeman and an attempted arrest ensued. Young fled; petitioner was subdued by back-up officers. A body search allegedly conducted by PO1 Rebustes yielded the Norinco 9mm pistol (serial no. 160447275) loaded with five live rounds, and sachets of suspected shabu; the firearm and ammunitions were marked in the presence of petitioner and later identified at trial. Petitioner admitted on cross-examination that he did not have a license to own or possess a gun.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 215, rendered a decision dated March 21, 2018 convicting petitioner of Illegal Possession of Firearms. The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 42335 affirmed in an October 14, 2019 Decision and denied reconsideration in an October 9, 2020 Resolution. The CA held the warrantless arrest valid as petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the incidental search valid, and that the elements of illegal possession were established...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s warrantless arrest and the subsequent warrantless search lawful?
- Was the element of lack of license to possess the firearm sufficiently proved absent a negative certification from the PNP or testimony from the Firearms and Explosives Office?
- On the whole, was petitioner properly convicted for violation of Section 28, paragr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)