Case Digest (G.R. No. 111951)
Facts:
People of the Philippines charged Alfredo Yanson y Rivera with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition for having a Cal. .38 Star pistol with four live rounds seized on May 3, 1991 in Naga City. The trial court convicted and, on December 16, 1991, sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua and ordered the firearm and ammunition forfeited; the accused appealed.
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in violation of the presumption of innocence?
- Did the prosecution prove that the accused was not licensed or authorized to possess the firearm?
- Were Exhibits C and F admissible despite lacking the attestation argued by the accused and without opportunity to cross-examine their signatories?
Ruling:
The Court affirmed the conviction in toto. It held that the weapon and ammunition were positively identified as those taken from the accused and that the certificates showing no record of permit issuance were admissible; the accused's failure to produce any permit further supported the prosecution.
Ratio:
The Court relied on the uncontradicted identification of Exhibit A by Barangay Tanod Rodolfo Arnaldo and Pfc. Orlando Pitaliano by serial number and trade mark and on the presumption that police and barangay tanod performed their duties regularly. Minor discrepancies in witness descriptions did not impair the core identification. The Court further held that Section 28 of Rule 132 (proof of lack of record) governs certificates of nonexistence of records, so Exhibits C and F were admissible notwithstanding Sections 24 and 25 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, and the accused's failure to produce a permit reinforced the prosecution's case.
Doctrine:
- Identification of a seized firearm by serial number and trade mark by competent witnesses suffices to prove possession.
- Testimony of police officers and barangay tanods is presumed regular and is entitled to full credit absent proof of improper motive.
- A written certificate of diligent search showing no record is admissible under Section 28 of Rule 132 as proof of lack of record.
- An accused's failure to produce a permit, if one exists, may corroborate the prosecution's evidence of lack of authorization.
- Insignificant discrepancies in witness description do not negate otherwise positive identification.