Case Digest (G.R. No. 199522)
Facts:
Benjamin Togado y Pailan, G.R. No. 260973, August 06, 2024, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Benjamin Togado (Togado) was charged with violation of Section 28 of Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act) for alleged unlawful possession of a .45-caliber pistol, its magazine and five live rounds, following the execution of Search Warrant No. 14-948 issued by Judge Cynthia R. Marino Ricablanca on May 28, 2014 and served on May 29, 2014.On May 29, 2014 the search-warrant team (led by PO3 Arnel Bigata and including PO1 Mar San Luis and PO1 Marvin Alcantara) entered Togado’s residence. Togado allegedly pointed to a .45-caliber pistol on a chair. PO1 San Luis placed the firearm and magazine inside a ziplock plastic and marked the plastic “MMS-01 5/29/14.” The team prepared a Certification of Orderly Search, took photographs, and prepared an inventory signed by the barangay witness and seizing officers; Togado was arrested and the seized items were turned over to PO3 Bautista (evidence custodian). The Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) certified that Togado was not a registered firearm holder.
At trial PO1 San Luis testified he marked only the ziplock plastic and not the firearm or magazine, later admitted the marked plastic was destroyed when retrieved from the evidence custodian, and expressed uncertainty whether the firearm produced in court was the very same firearm seized. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Togado beyond reasonable doubt; the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed, citing People v. Olarte for the proposition that the firearm need not be presented where its existence can be established by testimony. Togado moved for reconsideration in the CA; it was denied. He then filed a petition with the Supreme Court challe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Search Warrant No. 14-948 valid?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of unlawful possession under Section 28 of Republic Act No. 10591, or should petitioner be acquitted because the exact firearm seized was not proved to be the same on...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)