Case Digest (G.R. No. 118078)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Oscar Villanueva, G.R. No. 118078, July 15, 1997, Supreme Court Third Division, Francisco, J., writing for the Court.The information charged five persons — Reynaldo Bartolata alias Tilo, Oscar Villanueva, Johnny Sola alias Tangane, Dagoy Sola and Bobong Sola — with illegal possession of firearms in violation of P.D. No. 1866, Sec. 1, for allegedly having three lantakas and one sumpak on April 13, 1993, at Sitio Toquip, Barangay Jagnaan, San Jacinto, Masbate. Only Bartolata and Villanueva were apprehended; the Sola brothers remained at large.
Police action followed a report by Barangay Captain Jose Nunez of Danao about persons seen carrying arms. On April 13, 1993 a PNP team led by SPO4 Pascual Delavin, guided by Barangay tanod Gomez Samson, proceeded to the area. Along the trail to Sitio Toquip the team encountered the five accused; Bartolata, Villanueva and Johnny Sola were each carrying homemade guns (lantakas), Dagoy Sola carried a sumpak and Bobong Sola had a bolo. Bartolata and Villanueva surrendered; the others fled.
At trial Bartolata and Villanueva pleaded not guilty. Prosecution witnesses included SPO4 Delavin, Barangay Captain Nunez and Barangay Tanod Samson, whose testimonies recounted the encounter and seizure of the firearms (marked as Exhibits A–D). The defense offered alibis and accounts alleging that policemen used force, that the firearms might have been left at Villanueva’s unoccupied house by others, and that statements identifying ownership were solicited after detention.
On July 27, 1994, Branch 50, Regional Trial Court, San Jacinto, Masbate convicted both Bartolata and Villanueva of illegal possession under P.D. No. 1866, citing the positive and consistent testimony of prosecution witnesses over the defendants’ denials and alibis, and sentenced each to the penalty prescribed. Bartolata died after promulgation; Villanueva appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error that the prosecution witnesses were incredible and that the seized evidence was inadmissible as the fruit of illegal search and seizu...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Were the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and was the evidence admissible, i.e., should the Court resolve the appellant's claim of illegal search and seizure and the incredibility of witnesses?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal possession of firearms, particularly that the accused lacked the...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)