Case Digest (G.R. No. 163267)
Facts:
Teofilo Evangelista v. The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 163267, May 05, 2010, the Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Teofilo Evangelista was charged in an Information dated January 31, 1996 with violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (illegal possession of firearms and ammunition) for allegedly having a Jericho pistol, a Mini-Uzi submachine gun with magazines, and nineteen 9mm bullets at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) upon arrival from Dubai. The case arose after Dubai authorities allegedly turned over firearms to Philippine Airlines (PAL) personnel so petitioner could board; PAL pilot Capt. Edwin Nadurata testified he accepted custody of the firearms during the flight and surrendered them on arrival. The prosecution relied on witness testimony (Customs police Acierto; Special Agent Apolonio Bustos; SPO4 Federico Bondoc of the Firearms and Explosives Office), a Customs Declaration Form indicating “2 PISTOL guns SENT SURRENDER TO PHILIPPINE AIRLINE,” an Arrival Endorsement, and an FEO certification that petitioner was not a licensed firearms holder.
After posting bail, petitioner moved to suspend proceedings pending preliminary investigation; the State Prosecutor found no probable cause on March 6, 1996 and moved to withdraw the Information, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 109 denied the Motion to Withdraw on March 26, 1996 and proceeded with arraignment and trial. The trial court deferred resolution of petitioner’s Demurrer to Evidence pending his presentation of evidence; after the prosecution rested, the RTC initially convicted on February 4, 1997 but later granted petitioner’s Motion for New Trial on April 4, 1997.
At the new trial petitioner testified he had been coerced in Dubai to accept the firearms and that he denied ownership there; the defense also presented Capt. Nadurata and stipulated that the PAL Station Manager in Dubai, Nilo Umayaw, had turned over the firearms to the pilot. On January 23, 1998, the RTC again convicted petitioner for violation of Section 1, PD 1866, sentencing him to imprisonment (later adjusted to six years and one day to eight years) and a P30,000 fine, and ordered forfeiture of the firearms.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in its October 15, 2003 Decision (CA-G.R. CR No. 21805), holding that the trial stipulations and petitioner’s a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may this Court reexamine the factual findings of the Court of Appeals in a criminal case?
- Did petitioner have possession (actual or constructive) of the firearms within Philippine jurisdiction such that he could be convicted under Section 1 of PD 1866?
- Was the trial court bound by the State Prosecutor’s finding of no probable cause and the subsequent Motion to Withdraw the Information?
- Is the penalty imposed proper in light of the amendment...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)