Case Digest (G.R. No. 120163)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Datukon Bansil y Alog, G.R. No. 120163, March 10, 1999, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant, Datukon Bansil y Alog, a 28-year-old construction worker from Quiapo, Manila, was charged in an Information dated November 4, 1993 with illegal possession of a .45 caliber pistol and six live ammunitions in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866. The arrest allegedly occurred on October 28, 1993 after officers from Sub-station 3 of the Western Police District (WPD), led by Major Jaime Ortega and including SPO4 Oscar V. Clemente among others, acted on an unnamed informant’s tip that a suspect in a prior killing was in the vicinity of the Muslim Mosque in Quiapo. The arresting party purportedly observed a “suspicious bulge” on appellant’s waist; upon frisking, a .45 pistol with extended magazine and six live bullets was allegedly recovered from the front center of his waistline. Major Ortega brought appellant to the sub-station and SPO3 Jaime D. Mendoza later took custody of the appellant and firearm for safekeeping.
At trial the prosecution presented four witnesses (including SPO4 Clemente and SPO3 Mendoza; the testimony of the Firearms and Explosives Unit representative was dispensed with by stipulation) and introduced a certification that appellant was not a licensed firearms holder. The defense presented the accused and one witness, Serabanon Angcob, a waitress who testified appellant and Major Ortega were acquainted and who described the events differently: she said Ortega invited appellant to talk outside a restaurant, thereafter appellant was brought to the precinct and later shown a gun by unidentified persons who insisted it belonged to him; appellant denied possession and asserted Major Ortega alone arrested him. The defense also claimed appellant had been serving as a “helper” for Ortega on other occasions and had been asked to collect money, providing a narrative of ill will by Ortega.
The Regional Trial Court (Manila, Branch 43) found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating P.D. No. 1866 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Appellant appealed, raising multiple grounds including the constitutionality of P.D. No. 1866 under Article III, Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution, the legality of the arrest and search, the credibility of the police witnesses, and the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does Presidential Decree No. 1866 violate Article III, Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution (proscription against excessive fines and cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment)?
- Did the trial court correctly accord greater credence to the prosecution witnesses over the denial of appellant and thereby prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- Was appellant lawfully arrested without a warrant under the circu...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)