Case Digest (G.R. No. 159703)
Facts:
Cedric Sayco y Villanueva, G.R. No. 159703, March 03, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court. The petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assails the Court of Appeals' May 23, 2003 Resolution affirming petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of firearms under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, and the CA’s August 7, 2003 Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration.The prosecution charged petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bais City, by Information alleging that on January 3, 1999 he was found carrying a 9mm SIG SAUER P229 (Serial No. AE 25171) with 14 live rounds without having obtained the proper license or authority. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. At trial the prosecution presented police testimony (PO3 Mariano Labe, SPO2 Valentino Zamora, SPO2 Vicente Dorado) and admitted Exhibits A (pistol), B (ammunition), and C (joint affidavit). The police testimony recounted a tip, approach, arrest and confiscation; the arrested person was identified as petitioner.
Petitioner did not dispute possession but defended on the ground that the firearm and ammunition were government property entrusted to him as a confidential civilian agent of the Intelligence Security Group (ISG) of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). He introduced a Memorandum Receipt for Equipment and a Mission Order (both dated 1 January 1999) showing issuance of the firearm and authorization to carry it during the specified mission. The Memorandum Receipt purported to show receipt from Major Ricardo B. Bayhon, and the Mission Order indicated authorization to carry the ISG property (AE25171) during the mission.
The MTCC (Decision dated August 2, 2002) convicted petitioner and imposed prision correccional (medium to maximum) and a fine, and ordered forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition. The Regional Trial Court, Bais City (Decision dated March 14, 2003) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty downward under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals; the CA denied it in its May 23, 2003 Resolution and denied reconsideration in its August 7, 2003 Resolution. Petitioner then filed the present Rule 45 petition in this Court.
Petitioner argued below that as a confidential agent he was entrusted with government‑owned, ISG‑licensed firearms and therefore could not hold a PNP license in his name; he claimed good faith reliance on the Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order. The Solicitor General countered that a Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order do not substitute for the license issued by the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit, and that good faith i...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the lower courts err in convicting petitioner for violation of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, despite petitioner’s presentation of a Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order as authority to possess and carry the firearm?
- Did the prosecution prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and, if so, what is the proper penalty under the applica...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)