Title
People vs. De Gracia
Case
G.R. No. 102009-10
Decision Date
Jul 6, 1994
Rebel forces seized explosives during the 1989 coup; accused, a former soldier, convicted of illegal possession in furtherance of rebellion, affirmed by Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 102009-10)

Parties and Charges

  • Accused De Gracia was charged in two informations, tried jointly in Quezon City RTC Branch 103: (1) Illegal possession of ammunition and explosives in furtherance of rebellion (PD No. 1866, Sec. 1); and (2) Attempted homicide (shooting of Sgt. Crispin Sagario).
  • Trial outcome: Acquitted of attempted homicide; convicted of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition in furtherance of rebellion; sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The trial court also recommended executive clemency after five years for good behavior.

Key Dates

  • Surveillance and related incidents began the night of November 30, 1989; shooting of the surveillance car occurred December 1, 1989.
  • Military raid of Eurocar Sales Office occurred about 6:30 A.M., December 5, 1989.
  • Trial court judgment convicting De Gracia: February 22, 1991.
  • Parties stipulated that rebellion existed from November 30 to December 9, 1989.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

  • Primary statute: Presidential Decree No. 1866, Section 1 (criminalizes unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms, ammunition, explosives; prescribes increased penalties if violation is in furtherance of rebellion, insurrection or subversion). The text of Section 1 was applied.
  • Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution governs the decision (decision date post‑1990). The Constitution’s proscription of the death penalty at the relevant time influenced sentencing (see discussion below).

Facts as Found by Trial Court

  • During surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office (believed to be a rebel communications post), members of the AFP intelligence team were fired upon as they passed the building; Sgt. Sagario was wounded in the right thigh.
  • A subsequent raid found five bundles of C‑4 dynamite, six cartons of M‑16 ammunition, multiple M‑shells, and approximately 100 bottles of molotov bombs in a room identified as belonging to a Col. Matillano.
  • Sgt. Oscar Abenia testified he first entered the room and saw De Gracia standing there holding a C‑4 explosive; De Gracia was the only person in the room at that moment. A uniform with Matillano’s nametag was also recovered.
  • De Gracia’s account: he denied being in the office on December 1 and stated he was living in a nipa hut adjacent to the building and that he was merely guarding the office as an employee of Col. Matillano. He denied knowledge of the explosives and alleged he and two janitors were ordered to lie face down and that the explosives were already present when asked to stand.
  • No search warrant was secured for the raid; the raiding team cited prevailing disorder, ongoing firing, and closed courts as justification. De Gracia admitted he had no authority to possess firearms, ammunition and/or explosives.

Procedural History and Relief Sought

  • Trial court convicted De Gracia under PD No. 1866 (possession in furtherance of rebellion) and recommended executive clemency after five years. De Gracia appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court, challenging, inter alia, lack of animus possidendi, lack of ownership/tenancy, and the warrantless nature of the search.

Issue 1 — Whether Intent to Possess (Animus Possidendi) Is an Essential Element and Whether It Existed

  • Legal framework as applied: Ownership is not required for unlawful possession under PD No. 1866; possession may be actual or constructive. PD No. 1866 is a special law (malum prohibitum), so general rules on criminal intent differ: it is sufficient that the accused intended to perform the prohibited act (possession) even absent criminal intent to use the weapon in a separate offense. However, mere temporary, incidental or harmless control without animus possidendi does not constitute the offense.
  • The court distinguished between (a) intent to commit a substantive crime with the weapon (irrelevant under PD No. 1866), and (b) animus possidendi — the deliberate intent to possess the firearm/explosive. Conviction requires proof of possession coupled with animus possidendi.
  • Application to facts: The Supreme Court accepted the trial court’s findings that De Gracia had animus possidendi. Relevant factors included: the testimony of Sgt. Abenia that De Gracia was seen holding a C‑4; the unusually large quantity and offensive character of the items found in a non‑military, non‑armory commercial office; De Gracia’s past service in the Philippine Constabulary (knowledgeable familiarity with explosives and ammunition); his admitted role guarding the premises for Col. Matillano; and his presence at the scene and association with persons who fired on AFP personnel. The Court rejected De Gracia’s claim of innocent custody as not credible in the circumstances.

Issue 2 — Legality of the Warrantless Search and Seizure

  • The Supreme Court examined whether the absence of a search warrant invalidated seizure of the items. Although the raiding team had no warrant, the Court found the warrantless entry and search fell within recognized exceptions: presence of probable cause and exigent circumstances.
  • Probable cause: there were intelligence reports that the Eurocar building was being used as a rebel communications post; surveillance had been conducted; occupants refused to open the door; the surveillance team was fired upon from persons associated with the building; and the quantity and nature of the items found were inconsistent with legitimate activity in an automobile sales office. These facts established reasonable grounds for belief that a crime was being committed and that the objects sought were inside.
  • Exigency and practical impossibility of obtaining a warrant: the raid occurred amid active hostilities and disorder (nearby Camp Aguinaldo under attack; simultaneous firing in vicinity; courts closed), making it impracticable to secure a judicial warrant. The Court relied on precedents (e.g., People v. Malmstedt and Umil v. Ramos) to hold that in on‑the‑spot situations involving armed conflict or imminent threats, warrantless searches and seizures are justified to preserve public safety and to effect arrests in the context of rebellion.
  • Conclusion: The warrantless search and seizure were lawful under the circumstances; the recovered items were admissible and supportive of conviction.

Issue 3 — Whether Possession Was in Furtherance of Rebellion and Distinction from Rebellion as an Offense

  • The parties stipulated that an armed rebellion existed between November 30 and December 9, 1989. The Court assessed whether De Gracia’s possession was in furtherance of that rebellion.
  • The Court affirmed the trial court’s factual finding that the nature and
...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms