Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8293)
Facts:
On the night of September 29, 1952, Salvador Lubo fired a carbine at Filomeno Divinagracia from the fishpond corral property of Ramon Doromal in Dumangas, Iloilo. The next day, Lubo surrendered the carbine and fifteen bullets to local authorities. The trial court found that Lubo had the firearm and ammunition from January 15, 1948 (or earlier) until September 30, 1952, and convicted him for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4; Doromal was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
Lubo claimed that he found the carbine and fifteen bullets while cleaning a barge for Doromal and that the municipal mayor issued a “provisional permit” in his favor (Exhibit 2), dated January 15, 1948. On appeal, he raised only questions of law.
Issues:
- Whether the municipal mayor’s provisional permit (Exhibit 2) validated Lubo’s possession of the firearm and ammunition.
- Whether animus possidendi was absent so as to negate liability.
- Whether the penalty imposed was disproportionate for lack of a recommendation for executive clemency.
Ruling:
The Court held that the permit issued by the municipal mayor was invalid, and that it did not confer authority to possess firearms and ammunition. It also ruled that the plea of lack of animus possidendi was untenable in light of Lubo’s conduct, including possession and use of the firearm and his securing of a provisional “license.”
While sustaining the conviction and rejecting the penalty challenge as a ground for acquittal, the Court ordered that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the President for a recommendation that the penalty be reduced to one year, considering Lubo’s reported discovery and surrender of the firearm and ammunition and the presumed defense of the fishpond property when he fired.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that a municipal mayor is not authorized by law to issue licenses (or temporary/provisional permits) to possess firearms; authority lies with the President (regular licenses) and with the Provost Marshal General or provincial provost marshal (temporary licenses for limited periods). It further noted that provisions allowing temporary licenses under Republic Act No. 4 were repealed and that Exhibit 2, issued on January 15, 1948, was never renewed and thus could not justify continued possession.
On animus possidendi, the Court held that intent to possess was shown by Lubo’s actual possession and use of the firearm and by his obtaining and relying on the purported temporary license. As to penalty, the Court cited People vs. Estoista to uphold the constitutionality and proportionality of the statutory punishment absent exceptional circumstances, but it still directed that the judgment be referred to the Chief Executive for possible reduction in view of Lubo’s mitigating circumstances consistent with the Court’s recommendations in People vs. Estoista and People vs. Melgar.
Doctrine:
- A municipal mayor’s issuance of a provisional permit to possess firearms is void for lack of legal authority.
- (Get Pro to unlock 3 more doctrines)