Title
Artillero vs. Casimiro
Case
G.R. No. 190569
Decision Date
Apr 25, 2012
Police officers arrested a barangay captain for carrying a firearm without a permit; case dismissed due to valid license and authority under the Local Government Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 190569)

Factual Background

On August 6, 2008, Artillero and his officers responded to reports of gunfire in Barangay Lanjagan. Upon investigation, they encountered Aguillon, visibly drunk and carrying an M16 rifle without a Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence (PTCFOR). Aguillon presented a firearm license but failed to show evidence of the necessary permit to carry his firearm outside of his residence. The officers arrested Aguillon along with another individual, Paquito Panisales Jr., but released Paquito the same night after determining compliance with requirements for possessing a firearm.

Legal Proceedings

Artillero filed charges against Aguillon on August 12, 2008. Aguillon countered with an affidavit claiming his rights were violated during arrest. The Iloilo City Prosecutor ultimately dismissed the charges on grounds of insufficient evidence, a decision Artillero claims not to have received. The Ombudsman later upheld the dismissal, asserting that Aguillon lacked intent to commit a crime since he possessed a legal license for the firearm.

Due Process Claims

Artillero challenged the decision, alleging violation of his right to due process, claiming he was not provided copies of Aguillon’s counter-affidavit or the resolutions dismissing the case. He cited Section 3(c), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which mandates that a respondent must provide the complainant with a counter-affidavit and relevant documents.

Responses of the Respondents

The Ombudsman and Prosecutor countered that Artillero was not deprived of due process since he had opportunities to address his concerns through a Motion for Reconsideration, which he had filed. They argued the procedural rights invoked by Artillero related to the investigation phase did not extend to the complainant.

Analysis of the Court

The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to due process, as defined in Article III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution, is primarily afforded to the accused, not the complainant. The Court noted that the preliminary investigation is a procedural mechanism to assess probable cause, and it does not equate to a full trial. The dismissal of Aguillon's case was determined not to be arbitrary, thus upholding the Ombudsman’s findings of no probable cause.

Legal Framework on Firearm Possession

The Court clarified the legal requirements surrounding the carrying of firearms, particularly for local government officials like barangay captains. Under the Local Government Code, a barangay captain is entitled to carry a firearm within their jurisdiction to perform peace and order functions, albeit subject to existing rules and regulations. However, the necessity of the firearm during the incident, whether Aguillon was performing his official duties, and th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.