Title
Evangelista vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 163267
Decision Date
May 5, 2010
Evangelista convicted for illegal firearm possession at NAIA, lacking permits; constructive possession established, jurisdiction affirmed, penalty applied retroactively.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 102310-12)

Procedural History

Evangelista was charged on January 31, 1996, with illegal possession of firearms under Section 1, PD 1866. After posting bail, he secured a preliminary investigation that found no probable cause. The trial court denied the prosecutor’s motion to withdraw the Information, proceeded to arraignment, and conducted trial. The RTC convicted him on February 4, 1997, granted a new trial on his motion, and, following retrial, again convicted him on January 23, 1998, sentencing him to six years and one day to eight years’ imprisonment and a ₱30,000 fine. The CA affirmed on October 15, 2003, and denied reconsideration on April 16, 2004. Evangelista filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Prosecution Evidence

• Customs Police testimony established the firearms were in Evangelista’s custody upon arrival.
• Evangelista’s admissions during investigation and in open court that the weapons were his and had been purchased in Angola.
• Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) certification confirming no license or registration in his name.
• Customs Declaration Form signed by Evangelista indicating surrender of “2 PISTOL guns” to Philippine Airlines.

Defense Evidence and Stipulations

• Capt. Nadurata testified that he accepted the firearms solely to secure Evangelista’s release in Dubai and acted on Evangelista’s behalf during the flight to Manila.
• Parties stipulated that the firearms were originally confiscated from Evangelista in Dubai, turned over to the PAL Station Manager (Nilo Umayaw), and thereafter to Capt. Nadurata.
• Evangelista’s own testimony at the new trial claimed coercion by Dubai authorities and denial of ownership until arrival in Manila.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether Evangelista was in possession of firearms within Philippine jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the crime constituted a continuing offense.
  3. Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the preliminary investigation result.
  4. Whether Philippine courts lacked jurisdiction over conduct that began in Dubai.

Standard of Review and Jurisdiction

Under Rule 45, Court of Appeals’ findings of fact are generally conclusive. The Supreme Court may review questions of law and examine the entire record in criminal cases, especially when personal liberty is at stake. Territorial jurisdiction exists if any essential ingredient of the offense occurs within the Philippines; the Information alleged possession at NAIA, Pasay City.

Constructive Possession and Judicial Admission

Possession under PD 1866 encompasses actual or constructive control with animus possidendi. Evangelista’s stipulations, admissions to Customs officers, and signature on the Customs Declaration Form constitute judicial admissions binding on him. Capt. Nadurata’s custody of the firearms during flight was expressly on Evangelista’s behalf, establishing constructive possession.

Territorial Jurisdiction over the Offense

Although the firearms were handed over in Dubai, their continued custody by Evangelista into Philippine territory and his lack of any valid license fulfilled the offense within NAIA. Evangelista’s failure to prove any Dubai prosecution or criminal charge underscores Philippine jurisdiction, as alleged in the Information.

Preliminary Investigation and Trial Court Discretion

Once an Information is filed, the trial court need not heed the prosecutor’s resolution declining to indict. Pursuant to jurisprudence under the 1987 Constitution’s due process guarantees, the court independently assesses prima facie cases and may deny

...continue reading

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