Case Summary (G.R. No. 181182)
Charges and Allegations
Two informations were filed in the RTC of Roxas City arising from events alleged on or about May 12, 2004: Criminal Case No. C-137-04 charging violation of Section 2(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 6446 (gun ban) for allegedly carrying an Armalite rifle Colt M16 with two loaded long magazines during the election period; and Criminal Case No. C-138-04 charging violation of Section 1, Paragraph 2 of R.A. No. 8294 (illegal possession of firearm) for alleged possession and control of the same weapon and magazines without a proper license or permit.
Procedural History
Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment in Criminal Case No. C-138-04. Prior to arraignment in Criminal Case No. C-137-04 he filed a Motion to Quash the information for illegal possession (C-138-04) on the ground that prosecution for illegal possession was barred because he was also charged with a gun ban violation arising from the same facts. The RTC denied the Motion to Quash by Order of July 29, 2004 and denied reconsideration on September 22, 2004. Petitioner sought certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which affirmed by Decision dated April 18, 2005 and denied reconsideration by Resolution dated September 26, 2005. Petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on December 2, 2005.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether the prosecution for illegal possession of firearm under R.A. No. 8294 must be quashed when the accused is also charged with violation of the COMELEC gun ban based on the same facts — specifically, whether the proviso in R.A. No. 8294 (“Provided, however, That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.”) bars a separate prosecution for illegal possession when another offense has been charged.
Statutory Provision at Issue
R.A. No. 8294, Section 1 (as amended), provides penalties for unlawful possession of firearms and includes the proviso that the specified penalty applies “Provided, however, That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.” The statute also addresses situations where the use of an unlicensed firearm during the commission of certain crimes (e.g., homicide, murder) is treated as an aggravating circumstance or where illegal possession is absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d’état.
Court’s Interpretation and Reasoning
The Court interpreted the proviso’s phrase “no other crime was committed by the person arrested” to require a prior determination of guilt by a final conviction before it can operate to bar a separate prosecution for illegal possession. The Court reasoned that the ordinary meaning of “committed,” considered together with the constitutional presumption of innocence, implies that mere accusation is not the same as commission of a crime; there must be a judicial determination of guilt. Because petitioner had only been accused of, and pleaded not guilty to, the COMELEC gun ban violation, there was no prior conviction establishing that “another crime was committed” and therefore the proviso did not yet apply to bar prosecution for illegal possession.
Precedent and Comparative Cases
The Court distinguished two lines of cases. In Agote, Ladjaalam, Evangelista, Garcia, Pangilinan, Almeida, and Bernal, the accused were exonerated of illegal possession because they had been convicted of some other crime such that the proviso or absorption/aggravation rules applied. By contrast, the Court relied on Margarejo v. Hon. Escoses and People v. Valdez to support the proposition that prosecution for illegal possession may continue where the other offense charged is not one of those expressly enumerated in R.A. 8294, or where there is no final conviction establishing the commission of the other crime. The Court summarized the proper rule: if the other offense is one of those enumerated in R.A. 8294 (e.g., homicide/murder as aggravating circumstances or rebellion/insurrection/sedition/coup as absorbing offenses), an information for illegal possession should be quashed; if the other offense is not one of those enumerated, the separate illegal possession case should proceed.
Procedural Disposition and Doctrine on Remedies
Apart from the substantive ground, the petition was procedurally dismissed because petitioner pursued certiorari under Rule 65 when his proper remedy to challenge the appellate court’s decision and resolution was a pe
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 181182)
Case Caption and Nature of Petition
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Angel Celino, Sr.
- The petition assails: (a) the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated April 18, 2005 affirming the trial court’s denial of petitioner’s Motion to Quash; and (b) the Court of Appeals’ Resolution dated September 26, 2005 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
- The Supreme Court opinion in this matter was penned by Justice Carpio Morales; Justices Carpio, Tinga, and Velasco, Jr. concurred; Justice Quisumbing (Chairperson) was on official leave.
Uncontested Facts
- Two separate informations were filed in the Regional Trial Court (Roxas City) against petitioner for alleged violations related to firearms during the election period.
- Both informations stem from events alleged to have occurred on or about 12 May 2004 in the City of Roxas, Philippines.
- The two informations allege possession and carrying/transporting of an Armalite rifle Colt M16 with serial number 3210606 with two long magazines each loaded with thirty live ammunitions.
Informations Filed (Criminal Case Nos. C-137-04 and C-138-04)
- Criminal Case No. C-137-04: Charges petitioner with violation of Section 2(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 6446 (gun ban) for carrying outside his residence the cited firearm during the election period (December 15, 2005 to June 9, 2004) without written authorization from the Commission on Elections.
- Criminal Case No. C-138-04: Charges petitioner with violation of Section 1, Paragraph 2 of R.A. No. 8294 (illegal possession of firearm) for having possession and control of the same firearm and ammunition without the proper license or necessary permit.
Pleas and Pretrial Motions
- Upon arraignment in Criminal Case No. C-138-04 (illegal possession), petitioner pleaded not guilty.
- Prior to arraignment in Criminal Case No. C-137-04 (gun ban), petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the information for illegal possession, arguing that he could not be prosecuted for illegal possession if he was also charged with violating the COMELEC gun ban under the same set of facts.
Trial Court Proceedings and Rulings
- By Order dated 29 July 2004, the trial court denied petitioner’s Motion to Quash.
- The trial court’s denial was grounded on this Court’s earlier affirmation in Margarejo v. Hon. Escoses that denial was proper because “the other offense charged … is not one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294.”
- Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration to the trial court was likewise denied by Resolution dated 22 September 2004.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Rulings
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals challenging the trial court’s rulings.
- The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dated 18 April 2005 affirming the trial court’s denial of the Motion to Quash.
- Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration to the Court of Appeals, filed 9 May 2005, was denied by Resolution dated 26 September 2005.
Supreme Court Petition and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court on 2 December 2005.
- The Supreme Court found the petition to be filed beyond the reglementary period applicable for review by petition for certiorari treated as Rule 45 petition: the deadline to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was on or before 20 October 2005 (15 days after petitioner received a copy of the Court of Appeals’ resolution on 5 October 2005).
- The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was filed 58 days after receipt of the Court of Appeals’ resolution, and the Supreme Court concluded certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal.
Issues Raised
- Procedural issue: Whether petitioner’s recourse by way of certiorari under Rule 65 is proper given the availability of an appeal (Rule 45) and the lapse of the reglementary period.
- Substantive issue: Whether filing an information for a COMELEC gun ban violation necessarily bars prosecution for illegal possession of firearms under R.A. No. 8294, specifically the interpretation and application of the proviso “Provided, however, That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.”
Relevant Statutory Provision (R.A. No. 8294)
- Section 1 (as quoted in the source material) amends P.D. No. 1866 and provides, inter alia:
- “Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition…”
- Penalizes possession of high-powered firearms with prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) “Provided, however, That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.”
- If homicide or murder is committed with use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered an aggravating circumstance.
- If the violation is in furtherance of or incident to rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d’etat, the violation shall be absorbed as an element of such crime.
- The crux of the controversy in this case concerns the interpretation of the underscored proviso “That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.”
Precedents and Authorities Relied Upon in the Decision
- Cases cited by petitioner in support of his position:
- Agote v. Lorenzo (G.R. No. 142675, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA