G.R. No. 112090 - People vs. Lazaro y Servania

Accused-appellant Apolinar Lazaro y Servania was charged for illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866.
The incident allegedly occurred on May 5, 1991, in Naga City where during the course of an incident involving a shooting, the accused was found to be in possession of a .38 caliber revolver and six empty shells, without the required license or permit.

A shooting incident prompted police action on May 5, 1991, when police Sergeant Alejandro Bonnet, while on patrol, was alerted by bystanders of a bloodied man next to a Toyota jeep.
Following the call for assistance, police proceeded to the scene:

Upon stopping the jeep along Gen. Luna Street, evidence of a struggle and bloodshed was noted.
At the Bicol Regional Hospital, Police Major Jose A. Tuazon confirmed the presence of a driver with an unlicensed handgun.

The accused, while alighting from the jeep, was seen by the officer pulling out a handgun from his waist which he then dropped at the back of the driver’s seat.
The firearm was subsequently secured and identified as a .38 caliber revolver bearing Serial Number 1029315, accompanied by six empty shells.

The prosecution presented four witnesses (Pfc. Edilberto Puncia, Sgt. Alejandro Bonnet, Cpl. Jose Manzanero, and Major Jose A. Tuazon) whose testimonies established:

The recovery of the subject firearm and shells.
The manner and circumstances in which the accused handled the firearm during the incident.

Documentary evidence included a certification dated August 20, 1991, issued by Supt. Antonio T. Sierra of the Firearms and Explosives Office at Camp Crame stating that the accused was not a licensed firearms holder.
The accused’s own account:

Claimed that he was returning from a drinking outing with his nephew and an associate when a dispute arose involving a firearm.
Recounted that during the altercation he grappled with Ricardo Ronquillo over the possession of the gun, which resulted in both falling from the jeep.
Maintained that he could not definitively recall who was holding the gun at the moment shots were fired.
Offered explanations that differed from the law enforcement version regarding the handling of the firearm at the scene.

A separate information for homicide (Criminal Case No. 91-3487) had also been filed and tried separately from the illegal possession case.
Accused-appellant raised arguments that:

The information in the illegal possession case did not clearly allege homicide.
No eyewitness to the homicide was produced during that trial since such evidence was confined to the separate homicide case.

The enactment of Republic Act No. 8294 amended PD 1866 by reducing penalties for illegal possession when no other crime is committed, and by treating the use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide merely as an aggravating circumstance rather than as a basis for a separate conviction.
Legal debates highlighted in subsequent cases (e.g., People vs. Molina and People vs. Feloteo) interpreted that when a homicide or murder is committed with an unlicensed firearm, the improper imposition of a separate penalty for illegal possession should be avoided.
In the present case, although the two offenses were tried separately, the retroactive application of RA 8294 was argued to be advantageous to the accused.

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition on the ground that the prosecution failed to disprove the existence of a valid license or permit.
Whether the certification issued by the Firearms and Explosive Office, despite being offered without its issuing officer present for cross-examination, was admissible under the hearsay exception and sufficient to prove the absence of a license.
Whether, in light of the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 8294, the accused-appellant should be separately convicted for illegal possession of the firearm when the same unlicensed weapon was used in committing homicide.