G.R. No. 263014 - CastaAeda Jr. vs. Commission on Audit

Eduardo B. Neri was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm under Section 878, in relation to Section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4.
The trial court (City Court of Cagayan de Oro) found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime.
The judgment sentenced him to 1 year and 1 day of imprisonment, imposed a fine of P1,000.00 (with subsidiary imprisonment at P8.00 per day not exceeding ⅓ of the principal penalty), and ordered him to pay the costs.

The procedure post-judgment required the City Clerk of Court to deposit and deliver the confiscated firearm and ammunitions to the Provincial Commander of Misamis Oriental, with the receipt becoming part of the case record.

The accused contended that he possessed legitimacy to carry the firearm based on:

A firearm issued by the Provincial Governor on January 16, 1970 (marked as Exh. ‘3’) intended for use in his capacity as Deputy Governor.
A Special Permit issued by the Acting Provincial Commander (marked as Exh. ‘4’) that allowed him to carry the firearm outside his residence.

The defense argued that these permits should exempt him from criminal liability, contending that his actions did not violate the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.

The trial court noted that Section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code provides exceptions only for certain officers, officials, and employees explicitly listed, and the category of Deputy Governor was not included.
The permit issued by the Acting Provincial Commander was scrutinized:

The provision in Section 881 of the Revised Administrative Code pertains to special permits for subordinate officials or employees of national government bureaux upon the application of the Bureau Chief and issued by the President.
It was determined that the Special Permit (Exh. ‘4’) did not meet the criteria of the permit contemplated under Section 881.

Additionally, the firearm in question was identified as a homemade “paltik,” whose manufacture and possession are expressly prohibited by law. No license or permit, however improperly issued, could render its possession legal.

The appellate brief referenced People vs. Asa, where members of a civilian guard organization were acquitted based on the belief in good faith that they could lawfully possess firearms provided by their organization.
The court, however, reiterated that for a malum prohibitum offense, such as Illegal Possession of Firearm, the absence of criminal intent or good faith belief does not constitute a valid defense.
Further, reliance on People vs. Macarandang, which previously allowed possession by certain civilian agents, was dismissed in light of the People vs. Mapa decision, revoking that doctrine.

Whether the permits issued by the Provincial Governor (Exh. ‘3’) and the Acting Provincial Commander (Exh. ‘4’) legally authorized the accused, in his capacity as Deputy Governor, to possess and carry the firearm.
Whether these permits satisfy the requirements under Section 881 of the Revised Administrative Code for exemption from criminal liability.

Whether the exception provided in Section 879, which allows certain officers to possess firearms, extends to a Deputy Governor.
Whether the issuance of a permit outside the prescribed legal framework can convert an inherently illegal act (possession of a homemade “paltik”) into a lawful one.

Whether the accused’s good faith belief, based on the permits held, can serve as a valid defense in a malum prohibitum offense.
The court questioned if the absence of criminal intent could override the statutory requirement of possessing a properly issued license or permit.

How the decisions in People vs. Asa, People vs. Macarandang, and People vs. Mapa impact the interpretation of the exception for possession of firearms by public officials.