Case Digest (G.R. No. 248907)
Facts:
Ruben De Guzman y Lazano v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 248907, April 26, 2021, Supreme Court First Division, Carandang, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Ruben De Guzman y Lazano; respondent is the People of the Philippines.On December 25, 2010, an M16 “baby Armalite,” its magazine, and seventeen rounds of live ammunition were turned over to police in Barangay Roma, Enrile, Cagayan. An Information dated April 25, 2011 charged Ruben with illegal possession of a firearm in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294. Ruben pleaded not guilty at arraignment and, during pretrial, the parties stipulated to several facts including Ruben’s presence in Enrile that evening, that he was subjected to inquest proceedings, that the subject firearm was unlicensed, and that the firearm had been surrendered to police.
At trial the prosecution presented witnesses Dionisio Jarquio and Ramil Pajar who testified that Dionisio grappled with Ruben to take the firearm which was hanging on Ruben’s person, that Ramil thereafter removed the firearm and they turned it over to police, and that Ruben fled and was later arrested. Police witnesses identified the firearm and attested to its entry in the blotter. Ruben testified in his own behalf, supported by lay witnesses Silverio Severo and Felisa Zingapan, and by Dr. Ramby Danao who issued a medico-legal certificate documenting a two-centimeter laceration on Ruben’s right eyebrow; Ruben claimed he was mauled and did not possess the M16 that evening.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, Tuguegarao City, found Ruben guilty on February 10, 2017, gave weight to Dionisio’s and Ramil’s testimonies, and sentenced him under PD 1866 as amended. The RTC ordered the firearm forfeited and turned over to the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office. Ruben’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Ruben appealed. The Court of Appeals (CA), in a Decision dated December 14, 2018, affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the penalty in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103), recalculating the indeterminate term; the CA denied reconsideration on July 8, 2019....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming petitioner Ruben De Guzman y Lazano’s conviction for violation of PD 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294, when the prosecution allegedly failed to prove possession and animus possidendi beyond rea...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)