G.R. No. 119220 - People vs. Solayao

Case Summary (G.R. No. 119220)

Relevant Dates and Procedural Posture

Incident: about 9:00 P.M., July 9, 1992. Trial testimony dates and proceedings occurred in 1993–1994; trial court conviction dated August 25, 1994. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court; the trial court sentence was set aside by the Supreme Court and the accused acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework

Substantive statute: Presidential Decree No. 1866 (illegal possession of firearm and ammunition). Procedural provisions considered: Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (warrantless arrest/search context), Rule 129 and Rule 131 of the Rules of Court regarding admissions and burden of proof. The case was decided under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, including the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Material Facts as Found by the Prosecution

SPO3 NiAo testified that he and CAFGU members conducted an intelligence patrol to verify reports of armed persons. At Barangay Onion they encountered a group of five that appeared drunk; accused wore a camouflage uniform, and the others fled upon seeing the government agents. NiAo accosted Solayao, told him not to run, identified himself as a police officer, seized dried coconut leaves carried by Solayao, and found therein a 49-inch homemade firearm (“latong”). When asked whether he had a license or was connected to the military, Solayao reportedly answered that he had no permission to possess the firearm. The firearm was confiscated and Solayao was charged.

Defense Evidence and Account

Accused admitted the firearm was seized from his person but contended he had been handed the wrapped coconut-leaf “torch” by Hermogenes Cenining and was unaware it concealed a shotgun. Pedro Balano corroborated that a torch handed by Cenining proved to be a shotgun wrapped in coconut leaves. The accused maintained lack of knowledge and asserted possession was accidental.

Trial Court Findings and Sentence

The trial court credited the seizure and Solayao’s lack of permit and rejected his claim of accidental possession, finding inconsistencies (e.g., the accused’s claimed unfamiliarity with companions yet allegedly following named individuals). The trial court found nighttime as an aggravating circumstance, imposed the maximum penalty and sentenced Solayao to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Two assignments of error were presented: (1) the trial court erred in admitting the seized homemade firearm as evidence because it was the product of an unlawful warrantless search; and (2) the trial court erred in using the aggravating circumstance of nighttime to impose the maximum penalty. The Supreme Court elected to address primarily the evidentiary and burden-of-proof issues.

Legal Standard for the Offense and Burden of Proof

The elements of illegal possession under the governing jurisprudence are: (a) existence of the subject firearm and (b) that the accused who possessed it did not have the corresponding license or permit. Under the Rules of Court and controlling case law cited by the Court, the prosecution bears the burden to prove every essential element of the offense beyond reasonable doubt, including any negative element alleged in the information (i.e., absence of a license). While an accused may be in a better position to prove the existence of a license, this does not shift the ultimate burden of proving the negative element away from the prosecution; at minimum the prosecution must establish a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable (e.g., certification from the firearms licensing authority).

Admissibility of the Firearm — Search and Seizure Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the seizure violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court noted that the officers were conducting an intelligence patrol to verify reports of armed persons, observed suspicious conduct (intoxication, camouflage attire, companions fleeing), and the officer identified himself and told the accused not to run before seizing the wrapped object. The Court likened the circumstances to a “stop and frisk” situation (citing Posadas), where suspicion created reasonable cause to conduct a limited search without a prior formal arrest or a search warrant. Because the officers could not reasonably have procured a search warrant under the circumstances and there was a justifiable basis to stop and frisk the accused, the Court held the search and seizure lawful and affirmed the admissibility of the firearm as evidence.

Sufficiency of Evidence on the Absence of License

Although the prosecution established seizure of the firearm and an extrajudicial admission by the accused that he had no permission, the Court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second essential element — that the accused did not have a license or permit. The Court explained that an admission is an extrajudicial statement which, by itself, is not sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt or to substitute for affirmative proof of a negative element. The Court reiterated the rule that the prosecution must prove the absence of license and that a cert

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 119220)

Procedural Posture

Accused-appellant Nilo Solayao was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Criminal Case No. N-1592).
Trial was before the Regional Trial Court of Naval, Biliran, Branch 16; decision by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda found accused guilty on August 25, 1994 and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, citing one aggravating circumstance (nighttime) and no mitigating circumstances (Decision, p. 11, Rollo).
Accused appealed to the Supreme Court assigning errors: (I) erroneous admission in evidence of the homemade firearm; and (II) erroneous appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of nighttime in imposing maximum penalty (Accused-appellant’s Brief, pp. 43 and 46, Rollo).
The Supreme Court reviewed the trial record, testimony, and applicable precedent and rendered judgment reversing and setting aside the trial court decision, acquitting Nilo Solayao for insufficiency of evidence, and ordering immediate release unless other legal grounds for detention exist. Costs were ordered de oficio. The opinion was penned by Justice Romero; Regalado (Chairman), Puno, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concurred; Mendoza, J., on leave.

Material Facts as Found in the Record

On the evening of July 9, 1992, at about 9:00 p.m., SPO3 Jose NiAo, together with CAFGU members Teofilo Llorad, Jr. and Cecilio Cenining, conducted an intelligence patrol in Barangay Caulangohan, Caibiran, Biliran to verify reports of armed persons roaming barangays (TSN, June 16, 1993, pp. 4–5).
From Barangay Caulangohan the team proceeded to Barangay Onion where they encountered a group of five that included accused-appellant Nilo Solayao (TSN, p. 5).
The government agents observed that the group appeared drunk and that accused-appellant was wearing a camouflage uniform or jungle suit (TSN, p. 5).
Upon seeing the agents, accused-appellant’s companions fled (TSN, p. 5).
SPO3 NiAo told accused-appellant not to run, identified himself as “PC,” seized dried coconut leaves the accused was carrying, and found inside them a 49-inch long homemade firearm locally known as “latong” (TSN, pp. 5–7).
When asked whether he had a license or was connected with the military or an intelligence group, accused-appellant allegedly answered that he had no permission to possess the firearm (TSN, p. 7).
The firearm was confiscated and accused-appellant was turned over to the policeman of Caibiran, who investigated and charged him for illegal possession of firearm (TSN, pp. 5–7).
Accused-appellant’s defense: he did not contest confiscation but claimed the firearm had been given to him by a companion, Hermogenes Cenining, wrapped in coconut leaves as a torch; he claimed he did not know the coconut leaves concealed a shotgun and that it was the third torch handed to him after the others had been used up (TSN, pp. 5–7).
Testimony corroborating the defense: Pedro Balano testified that accused-appellant indeed received a torch from Hermogenes Cenining which turned out to be a shotgun wrapped in coconut leaves (TSN, April 20, 1994, pp. 32–33).
Trial court found accused-appellant not credible on the claim of accidental possession and noted contradictions (e.g., accused claimed not to know his companions but later followed four named persons) (Decision, p. 13, Rollo).

Trial Court Findings and Sentence

Trial court found accused-appellant guilty under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for illegal possession of firearm and imposed imprisonment ranging from reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua, ultimately sentencing him to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties (Decision, p. 11, Rollo).
Trial court found one aggravating circumstance: nighttime; it found no mitigating circumstances (Decision, p. 11, Rollo).
Trial court accepted the seizure and the absence of any permit or license as found in the record and did not credit accused-appellant’s claim of accidental possession (Decision, pp. 11–13, Rollo).

Assigned Errors on Appeal

Error I: The trial court erred in admitting the homemade firearm in evidence because it was the product of an unlawful warrantless search in violation of the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; the search did not fall under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as incident to a lawful arrest (Accused-appellant’s Brief).
Error II: The trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nighttime in imposing the maximum penalty (Accused-appellant’s Brief).

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the seizure and admission of the homemade firearm were lawful despite being conducted without a warrant and whether the search fell within permissible exceptions (e.g., “stop and frisk”).
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the essential element that accused-appellant lacked a license or permit to possess the subject firearm.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Search and Seizure; “Stop and Frisk”

The Court recognized that the prosecution bears the burden to prove the elements of illegal possession of a firearm: (a) existence of the subject firearm and (b) absence of the corresponding license or permit (People v. Lualhati, 234 SCRA 325 (1994), citing People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547 (1992)).
Accused-appellant argued the search was unlawful, warrantless, and not within the enumerated exceptions; reliance invoked People v. Cuizon (G.R. No. 109287, April 18, 1996), which emphasized that a search must be incident to a lawful arrest and that an arrest must precede a search to avoid unlawfulness when a search first produces evidence used to effect an arrest.
The Court examined the circumstances: the peace officers were on an intelligence patrol to verify reports of armed persons; the group’s drunken behavior, accused-appellant’s camouflage attire, and the flight of his companions on sighting the agents reasonably aroused suspicion (TSN, pp. 4–5).
The Court compared the facts to Posadas v. Court of Appeals