Case Digest (G.R. No. 192727)
Facts:
Raul B. Escalante v. People of the Philippines and the Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 192727, January 09, 2013, Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Raul B. Escalante, then Municipal Mayor of Almagro, Samar, was criminally charged in two Informations arising from an incident at a barangay fiesta on April 3, 1995. The first Information (Criminal Case No. 2074, filed August 23, 1995) charged him with violation of Section 261(q) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (BP 881) (COMELEC election gun ban). The second (Criminal Case No. 3824, filed June 16, 2000) charged him with illegal possession of firearm under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended.
The two cases were consolidated for joint trial in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calbayog City. At pretrial the petitioner admitted he had no license to possess a firearm and that April 3, 1995 fell within the election gun ban period. The prosecution’s witnesses testified that the petitioner wore a .45-caliber pistol, walked to the rivals’ table, fired a shot upward, and was thereafter disarmed by bystanders; the police blotter initially described the incident as an accidental firing. The petitioner’s defense was that PO3 Conrado Unajan drew his firearm to control a rowdy crowd, that the petitioner wrested the weapon from Unajan and that a shot was accidentally fired during the struggle, after which the petitioner returned the firearm to Unajan.
On May 23, 2003 the RTC convicted petitioner of both offenses: Criminal Case No. 3824 (illegal possession) was sentenced to an indeterminate term (minimum four years two months to maximum six years) with fine, and Criminal Case No. 2074 (violation of election gun ban) to a straight one-year imprisonment. The RTC credited the prosecution witnesses and rejected the petitioner’s version.
The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 27673 affirmed the RTC in a June 24, 2008 Decision. On motion for reconsideration the CA, by resolution dated March 4, 2009, partly granted reconsideration: it dismissed Criminal Case No. 3824 (illegal possession) — applying the rule that simple illegal possession cannot stand when the unlicensed firearm was used in the commission of another crime — and affirmed the conviction in Criminal Case No. 2074 for violation of the election gun ban. The petitioner filed a second partial motion for reconsideration which the CA denied by...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming petitioner’s conviction for violation of the COMELEC gun ban where, petitioner asserts, an essential element (possession of the firearm)...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)