Title
People vs. De Gracia
Case
G.R. No. 102009-10
Decision Date
Jul 6, 1994
Rebel forces seized explosives during the 1989 coup; accused, a former soldier, convicted of illegal possession in furtherance of rebellion, affirmed by Supreme Court.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 208912)

Facts:

  • Political and Military Context
    • From November 30 to December 9, 1989, ultra-rightist elements of the Reform the Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP) staged a coup attempt, bombarding various military installations in Metro Manila and occupying key facilities (Villamor Air Base, Camp Aguinaldo, Greenhills Shopping Center).
    • Intelligence reports indicated that the Eurocar Sales Office along EDSA in Quezon City was being used by RAM as a communication command post.
  • Charges and Arraignment
    • Criminal Case No. Q-90-11755: Rolando de Gracia, Chito Henson, and John Does were charged under Section 1, paragraph 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 with illegal possession of five bundles of C-4 dynamite, six cartons of M-16 ammunition (20 rounds each), and 100 Molotov bombs in furtherance of rebellion on or about December 5, 1989.
    • Criminal Case No. Q-90-11756: The same accused plus others were charged with attempted homicide for the shooting of Sgt. Crispin Sagario on December 1, 1989.
    • At arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges but admitted lack of authority to possess firearms or explosives. The parties stipulated to the existence of rebellion during the period in question.
  • Surveillance, Raid, and Arrest
    • On the night of November 30 and early morning of December 1, 1989, AFP intelligence teams conducted surveillance of Eurocar; the team was fired upon, wounding Sgt. Sagario.
    • On December 5, 1989, elements of the 16th Infantry Battalion and AFP units, without a search warrant due to exigent circumstances and closed courts, forcibly entered the Eurocar office. They found and confiscated the explosives and ammunition in Col. Matillano’s office, observing appellant De Gracia holding a bundle of C-4. Appellant and two janitors were arrested and made to sign an inventory in Tagalog.
  • Appellant’s Defense and Trial Court Decision
    • Appellant claimed he was at Col. Matillano’s birthday party in Antipolo on November 30 and merely guarded the office in a nipa hut adjacent to the building, without knowing or possessing the explosives.
    • On February 22, 1991, the Regional Trial Court acquitted him of attempted homicide but convicted him of illegal possession of firearms and explosives in furtherance of rebellion, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and recommending executive clemency after five years of good behavior.

Issues:

  • Whether intent to possess (animus possidendi) is an essential element under P.D. 1866 and if appellant harbored such intent.
  • Whether the warrantless search and seizure at Eurocar Sales Office were valid under the Constitution.
  • Whether appellant’s possession of the seized items was in furtherance of the stipulated rebellion.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.