Title
Supreme Court
Abenes y Gacutan vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 156320
Decision Date
Feb 14, 2007
Rodolfo Abenes acquitted of illegal firearm possession due to insufficient proof of lack of license but convicted for violating the election gun ban, with modified penalties and firearm confiscation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 156320)

Applicable Law and Charges

Petitioner was charged under:

  • Criminal Case No. 4559-98: Violation of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, for illegal possession of a .45 caliber Norinco pistol and corresponding ammunition without license or permit.
  • Criminal Case No. 4563-98: Violation of Section 261(q) of B.P. Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code), related to the COMELEC-enforced gun ban during the election period, for carrying the same firearm without COMELEC authority.

Factual Background

On May 8, 1998, a police checkpoint was established in Barangay Danlugan, Pagadian City, to enforce the COMELEC gun ban in the election period. Police requested motorists to alight for routine inspection. Abenes, among eight occupants of a red Tamaraw FX, complied. The police officers observed a holstered firearm visibly tucked into Abenes’s right waist, uncovered by his shirt. When asked for license or proof of authority to carry the gun, Abenes failed to produce any; consequently, the firearm and ammunition were confiscated. Abenes claimed the gun was found inside a clutch bag allegedly left by an unknown hitchhiker.

Trial Court Findings and Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pagadian City convicted Abenes in both criminal cases. The RTC held that:

  • The testimonies of the police officers were credible, and their positive identification of the gun in plain view on Abenes’s person outweighed the defense's denial.
  • The defense's alibi regarding an unidentified hitchhiker leaving the clutch bag containing the firearm was implausible and rejected.
  • The prosecution sufficiently proved that Abenes did not have any license to possess the firearm, based on official certification.
  • The penalty imposed for illegal possession was imprisonment from 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional (medium period) to 8 years of prision mayor, plus a fine.
  • For violation of the election gun ban, Abenes was sentenced to one year imprisonment with additional disqualification from holding public office and deprivation of suffrage.
  • The firearm and ammunition were forfeited to the government.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals (CA), on November 29, 2002, affirmed the RTC decision with modification of the penalty in Criminal Case No. 4559-98 to an indeterminate sentence of 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prision correccional (minimum) to 7 years and 4 months of prision mayor (maximum). The CA upheld:

  • Validity of the checkpoint, presuming official duty was regularly performed.
  • The firearm’s seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine because the firearm was openly visible.
  • The prosecution’s evidence was more credible than the petitioner’s claims.
  • Rejection of petitioner’s reliance on Aniag, Jr. v. Comelec, ruling it distinguishable.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner raised the following issues:

  1. Whether the checkpoint was validly established.
  2. Whether the petitioner’s constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure was violated.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused discretion in adopting the trial court’s findings.
  4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to acquittal for failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially as to the location of the firearm.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on the Checkpoint and Search and Seizure

  • The checkpoint was valid: It was set up three days before the election for enforcing the COMELEC gun ban, as part of official police duties.
  • Police may conduct routine, minimally intrusive inspections at checkpoints.
  • Motorists were politely requested to alight and vehicles visually checked without forcible search or bodily frisk before discovery.
  • The firearm was observed in plain view when Abenes alighted; thus, its seizure without warrant was lawful under the plain view doctrine.
  • The Court distinguished Aniag, emphasizing that in this case the firearm was visible on petitioner’s person, unlike Aniag where the gun was inside an unchecked package.
  • The plain view doctrine requirements were met: lawful initial intrusion, inadvertent discovery, and immediately apparent incriminatory nature of the firearm.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Burden of Proof for Illegal Possession of Firearms

  • While possession of the firearm was proven beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the negative allegation that petitioner lacked a license or permit.
  • The certification from the PNP firearms office was outdated and did not conclusively show petitioner was unlicensed at the time of arrest.
  • The prosecution did not present evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt the non-issuance of a license from 1994 to May 1998.
  • Lack of permit or license is an essential element of illegal possession, thus the failure to prove it results in acquittal.
  • Accordingly, the Court acquitted petitioner in Criminal Case No. 4559-98 for failure of proof.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Election Offense Charge

  • Under the Omnibus Election Code as amended by R.A. No. 7166, during the election period, no person may bear firearms in public places even if licensed, unless authorized in writing by COMELEC.
  • The burden to prove exemption or authorization lies with the accused.
  • Petitioner failed to prove he had COMELEC authorization to carry the firearm during the election period.
  • Petitioner’s conviction for violation of Section 261(q) of B.P. Blg. 881 was affirmed.
  • Appropriate penalty is an indeterminate sentence of one (1) year to two (2) years imprisonment, disqualification from public office, and deprivation of suffrage, without probation.

Penalty and Forfeiture

  • The penalty for illegal possession conviction was modified to acquittal; hence, no penalty imposed.
  • The election offense penalty was reduced to an indeterminate sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
  • The firearm and ammunition were ordered confiscated and forfeited to the government pursuant to Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code.

Final Disposition

  • The Supreme Court partly granted the petition.
  • The CA decision was reversed and set

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms