Case Summary (G.R. No. 190889)
Factual Background
On the evening of August 27, 2002, police elements of the Provincial Intelligence Special Operations Group (PISOG) responded to complaints of armed men firing at a residence in Barangay Andagao, Kalibo, Aklan, where Elenita C. Fajardo resided and where Zaldy Valerio was present. Responding officers observed several persons flee, saw Valerio holding two .45 caliber pistols and firing at police before entering Fajardo’s house, and observed Fajardo tuck a .45 caliber handgun into her waistband and enter the house. Officers cordoned the premises and posted at its back. At about 2:00 a.m. and again at about 4:00 a.m. on August 28, 2002, Senior Police Officer 2 Clemencio Nava saw Valerio on the roof throw objects that landed near a wall and within a neighboring compound. Nava, together with witnesses including a radio announcer, recovered two lower receivers of a .45 caliber pistol from outside the house. Later, by virtue of a search warrant, police searched Fajardo’s residence at 9:30 a.m. and seized two short magazines for an M16 rifle, thirty-five live M16 rounds, and fourteen live .45 rounds. Fajardo and Valerio produced no license or permit to possess those items.
Procedural History
An information was filed charging Fajardo and Valerio with violation of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294. Both pleaded not guilty on arraignment. During pretrial the parties stipulated to several facts, including the existence and service of the search warrant and that neither accused was a duly licensed firearm holder. The RTC denied a motion to quash the search warrant and a demurrer to evidence; those orders were not appealed. The RTC found both accused guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under paragraph 2, Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 and imposed imprisonment and fines. Only petitioner filed a timely motion for reconsideration and appealed to the CA after its denial. The CA modified the RTC judgment: it held the search warrant invalid for the seized items inside the house but admitted the two receivers found outside the house under the plain view doctrine, convicted both for illegal possession of a part of a firearm under paragraph 1, Section 1, and imposed lesser penalties. Petitioner then sought relief in the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
Trial Court Findings
The RTC rejected the accuseds’ challenges to the search and their defenses as barred by prior unappealed orders and by waiver through participation in trial and application for bail. The RTC found Valerio to be a former soldier familiar with firearms and concluded that the seized items were not stored lawfully in Fajardo’s residence. The RTC applied the doctrine that ownership is not essential to conviction under P.D. No. 1866 and held that constructive possession sufficed to convict both accused of illegal possession of high powered firearms and ammunition under paragraph 2, Section 1 of the law.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA agreed with the RTC’s factual findings but held the search warrant defective because the affiant, SPO1 Nathaniel A. Tan, lacked personal knowledge that the accuseds had no license and failed to attach or explain the absence of a certification from the Firearms and Explosives Office verifying lack of a license. Consequently, the CA excluded the firearms and ammunition seized inside Fajardo’s house as inadmissible. The CA nevertheless admitted the two receivers recovered outside the house under the plain view doctrine and convicted both accused of illegal possession of a part of a firearm under paragraph 1, Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended, imposing an indeterminate sentence and fines.
Issues Presented on Review
The principal contest before the Supreme Court concerned the admissibility of the two receivers and whether petitioner was criminally liable for illegal possession of a part of a firearm recovered outside her house. Ancillary issues included the alleged duplicity of the information under Section 13, Rule 110 and the legality of the search warrant and its effects on the evidence seized inside the premises.
Petitioner’s Contentions
Petitioner maintained that the two receivers were not admissible under the plain view doctrine because their discovery was not the product of a lawful intrusion and because no evidence established that she was present or participated when the receivers were thrown. Petitioner disowned the seized items, refused to sign the inventory, alleged the seized pistols belonged to her brother, and disputed the police account that she had tucked a .45 pistol in her waistband.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on the Plain View Doctrine
The Court affirmed that evidence obtained in violation of Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution is generally inadmissible, subject to recognized exceptions including seizure in plain view. The Court enumerated the requisites for application of the plain view doctrine: an officer must have lawful justification to be positioned to view the area, the discovery must be inadvertent, and it must be immediately apparent that the observed item may be evidence or contraband. Applying these criteria, the Court found that the police presence around Fajardo’s premises was justified by the earlier sighting of firearms and the suspects’ evasive conduct; that SPO2 Nava lawfully occupied a position at the rear of the house and observed Valerio twice throw objects from the roof; and that, given prior observations of Valerio with a pistol, Nava reasonably suspected the thrown objects were contraband. The Court held the initial discovery of the two receivers to be inadvertent, and therefore admissible under the plain view doctrine.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Possession and Animus Possidendi
The Court examined the elements of illegal possession under P.D. No. 1866 as amended: existence of the firearm or part, and lack of authority or license to possess it. The Court reiterated controlling precedents that possession may be actual or constructive but that conviction requires proof of animus possidendi, an intent to possess, even though malum prohibitum status dispenses with proof of criminal intent to use the weapon. The Court found that while the receivers were lawfully admitted against Valerio, the prosecution failed to prove that Fajardo had either actual or constructive
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 190889)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- ELENITA C. FAJARDO was the petitioner charged with illegal possession of firearms and parts and appealed to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court.
- People of the Philippines was the respondent prosecuting the offense under P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294.
- The Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Kalibo, Aklan convicted petitioner and co-accused Zaldy Valerio and imposed penalties under paragraph 2, Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification by voiding much of the search-warrant-based evidence but admitted two recovered receivers under the plain view doctrine and convicted both for illegal possession of a part of a firearm.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the CA decision and reversed with respect to petitioner by acquitting her on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Key Facts
- Concerned citizens complained of armed men drinking and indiscriminately firing guns at petitioner’s residence on the evening of August 27, 2002.
- Members of the Provincial Intelligence Special Operations Group responded and saw Zaldy Valerio holding two .45 caliber pistols and firing shots before he entered petitioner’s house.
- Petitioner was allegedly seen tucking a .45 caliber handgun between her waist and the waistband of her shorts before she entered and locked the house.
- The police cordoned the house instead of entering and at about 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. SPO2 Clemencio Nava saw Valerio emerge on the roof and throw objects that landed near a wall and inside a neighbor’s compound.
- The thrown items were recovered by SPO2 Nava, SPO1 Teodoro Neron, and radio announcer Jerome T. Vega, and were identified as two lower receivers of a .45 caliber pistol.
- SPO1 Nathaniel A. Tan received the recovered receivers and used them in applying for a search warrant which was thereafter served at petitioner’s house at 9:30 a.m., resulting in the seizure of magazines and live ammunition.
- Petitioner and Valerio stipulated among other things that the search warrant existed, that neither were licensed firearm holders, and that Valerio had been in petitioner’s house on the evening of August 27, 2002.
Procedural History
- Petitioner and Valerio were arraigned on March 25, 2004 and pleaded not guilty.
- The RTC denied a Motion to Quash the Search Warrant and a Demurrer to Evidence by Orders dated December 31, 2002 and April 20, 2005 respectively, and those orders attained finality.
- The RTC convicted both accused on August 29, 2006 and sentenced them to six years and one day to twelve years of prision mayor and to pay P30,000.00.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied on October 25, 2006, and she appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, in a February 10, 2009 decision, held the search warrant void for lack of personal knowledge and omission of the PNP certification, excluded items seized inside the house, admitted the two receivers under the plain view doctrine, and convicted both accused for illegal possession of a part of a firearm with sentences of prision correccional and a P20,000.00 fine.
- The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a December 3, 2009 resolution, prompting the present petition to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the two lower receivers recovered outside petitioner’s house were admissible under the plain view doctrine.
- Whether petitioner could be held criminally liable for illegal possession of the recovered receivers given the evidence presented.
- Whether the search warrant and the evidence seized inside petitioner’s house were valid or should be suppressed.
- Whether the information filed was duplicitous under Section 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court and whether any failure to object waived t