Title
People vs. Dela Rosa y Aviles
Case
G.R. No. 84857
Decision Date
Jan 16, 1998
Rodolfo dela Rosa acquitted of illegal firearm and explosive possession; prosecution failed to prove intent and lack of license beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 84857)

Procedural History

On January 27, 1987, an information was filed against the accused for illegal possession of firearms and explosives in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866. The accused were arraigned on February 3, 1987, pleading not guilty initially but later substituting that with a plea of guilt, which they subsequently withdrew on March 19, 1987. Cresencio Reyes later pleaded guilty to a lesser offense and was utilized as a witness during the trial.

Factual Background

On December 9, 1986, the four accused surrendered to Kagawad Valeriano Rigor, claiming they wished to lead a new life and reporting the shooting of Kumander Tamang. They surrendered a short shotgun and a bag of dynamite to Rigor, who subsequently informed the police. Officers arrived to secure the area and documented the events. The bodies and firearms linked to their case were further recovered from a location pointed out by Reyes.

Arguments at Trial

The three remaining accused testified about their recruitment by Kumander Tamang into the New People's Army (NPA) and the events leading to their surrender. Notably, they claimed to be unaware of the illegal nature of the firearms and explosives, asserting that they intended to surrender them.

Trial Court’s Ruling

The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused based on the evidence presented, highlighting the surrender as insufficient to negate possession. The court underscored that, under PD No. 1866, mere possession of unlicensed firearms was sufficient for conviction, regardless of intent to surrender.

Appeal

Rodolfo dela Rosa appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court had erred in finding him guilty of illegal possession of firearms and explosives. He maintained that he did not possess the arms with criminal intent but had intended to surrender them.

Legal Analysis

In evaluating the appeal, the court focused on the essential elements of illegal possession defined under PD No. 1866: possession and lack of authority or license to possess a firearm. The appellant contended that his actions demonstrated a harmless and incidental possession intended solely for surrender. The central debate was whether there existed animus possidendi—an intention to possess—at the time of surrender.

Relevant Legal Principles

It was determined that for a conviction under the decree, the prosecution must prove that the accused possessed a firearm without the requisite license and with the intent to possess it. Previous jurisprudence established that transient possession intended for surrender did not amount to illegal possession. The c

...continue reading

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