G.R. No. 221991 - Peralta y Zareno vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 221991)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Incident alleged to have occurred on November 18, 2008; Information filed November 20, 2008. Trial court (Regional Trial Court, Dagupan City, Branch 44) rendered its decision on July 31, 2012. The Court of Appeals affirmed on May 29, 2015 and denied reconsideration on December 8, 2015. The present petition is a Supreme Court review on certiorari from the CA decisions.

Applicable Law

Primary statutory basis: Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294 (criminalizing unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition; prescribing prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of P30,000 for high-powered firearms such as caliber .45). Constitutional framework: 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2 (prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures) and Section 3(2) (inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation of these provisions). Procedural rule: Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (grounds for arrest without warrant).

Factual Findings Presented by the Prosecution

Police officers responded to a telephone report of a man firing a gun behind the PLDT building in Pantal District. Upon arrival at about 11:00 p.m., officers observed two men walking—identified later as petitioner and Larry Calimlim—one holding a gun and the other a knife. The officers approached; they apprehended the men and recovered from petitioner a .45 caliber pistol (Serial No. 4517488) with a magazine containing five live rounds, and from Calimlim a knife. The firearm and magazine were endorsed to the duty investigator, marked, offered and admitted in evidence.

Defense Position

Petitioner denied possessing a firearm and claimed that he and Calimlim were riding a motorcycle when flagged down by police. He admitted that officers recovered a knife from Calimlim but denied carrying a gun or discharging one. He contended it would have been impossible to carry a firearm at the time and place due to proximity to the barangay hall and residences of a police officer and a mediaman. Petitioner further alleged he was forced to admit possession at the police station, that paraffin test results were not furnished to them, and he asserted a theory of police frame-up motivated by alleged animus toward his brother.

Trial Court and Court of Appeals Findings

The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, crediting positive identification by PO3 Carvajal of petitioner carrying the firearm and the Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) Certification that petitioner was not a licensed firearm holder for the specified pistol. The CA affirmed in toto, agreeing that the prosecution established the existence of the firearm and lack of license, and that the arrest and seizure complied with the plain view doctrine and lawful in flagrante delicto arrest principles. The CA also considered the paraffin test results immaterial to the offense because PD 1866 punishes possession without a license irrespective of firing.

Legal Elements of the Offense and Burden of Proof

Under Section 1, PD 1866, as amended, the corpus delicti of illegal possession of firearms consists of: (a) existence of the firearm and ammunition; and (b) lack of corresponding license or permit by the person possessing or owning the same. The prosecution bears the burden of proving both elements beyond reasonable doubt. Possession alone is not illegal; criminality attaches when possession lacks legal authority.

Evidence Establishing the Elements

The prosecution offered direct eyewitness identification by the arresting officer who observed petitioner carrying the pistol in plain view. The recovered pistol, its serial number, magazine and live ammunitions were seized, marked, and introduced in evidence. The FEO Certification (dated August 10, 2011) established that petitioner was not a licensed/registered firearm holder for the specific caliber and serial number. These items satisfy the two-pronged proof required for illegal possession under PD 1866.

Probative Value of the Paraffin Test

The paraffin test administered to petitioner (and others) was not produced in evidence; the Court observed that paraffin or gunpowder residue tests are generally unreliable and inconclusive as proof of firing a weapon. The paraffin test does not determine that discharge of a firearm occurred; it only indicates presence or absence of nitrates which have nonexclusive sources. Moreover, firing a weapon is not an essential element of the PD 1866 offense; unlawful possession alone suffices. Consequently, the absence or nonproduction of paraffin test results did not prejudice the prosecution’s case.

Constitutionality and Admissibility: Searches and Seizures

The Court applied the protections of the 1987 Constitution (Article III, Sections 2 and 3[2]) against unreasonable searches and seizures and the exclusionary rule for evidence acquired in violation thereof. However, the Court recognized established exceptions to the warrant requirement. One such exception is a search incidental to a lawful arrest: a valid arrest must precede the search. Arrests without a warrant are lawful when they fall within the categories enumerated in Section 5, Rule 113 (in flagrante delicto, offense just committed with probable cause known to the arresting officer, or escaped prisoner scenarios). The presence of requisite elements for arrest without warrant is fundamental.

Application of In Flagrante Delicto and Validity of the Arrest

The Court found that the arresting officers personally observed petitioner carrying a firearm in plain view upon arrival at Pantal District. This constituted an overt act done in the presence of the officers indicating commission of an offense, satisfying the in flagrante delicto standard under Section 5(a), Rule 113. Because the arrest itself was lawful, the subsequent search incidental thereto and the seizure of the firearm and ammunition were lawful and the recovered items w

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 221991)

Case Citation, Panel and Nature of Proceeding

Reported at 817 Phil. 554; Second Division; G.R. No. 221991, decided August 30, 2017.
Petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Joselito Peralta y Zareno (Peralta) assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated May 29, 2015 and CA Resolution dated December 8, 2015 in CA‑G.R. CR No. 35193.
The CA had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated July 31, 2012 in Crim. Case No. 2008‑0659‑D finding Peralta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294.
Supreme Court decision penned by Justice Perlas‑Bernabe; Acting Chief Justice Carpio (Chairperson), and Justices Peralta, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr. concurred. Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2475 dated August 29, 2017.

Procedural History

Information filed November 20, 2008 charging illegal possession of firearms and ammunition (PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294).
RTC Decision rendered July 31, 2012 convicting Peralta and imposing penalty and fine.
Peralta appealed to the CA; CA Decision affirmed conviction in toto on May 29, 2015.
Peralta's motion for reconsideration to the CA was denied by Resolution dated December 8, 2015.
Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court followed, leading to the instant decision dated August 30, 2017.

Charged Offense and Accusatory Allegations

Accusatory portion of the Information (as charged): On or about November 18, 2008, in Dagupan City, Peralta willfully, unlawfully and criminally had in his possession one (1) cal. .45 pistol with Serial No. 4517488 with magazine containing five (5) live ammunitions, without authority to possess the same, contrary to PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294.
The charge specifically invokes Section 1 (penalty provisions) of PD 1866, as amended.

Factual Narrative as Found by Prosecution and Trial Court

At around 11:00 p.m. on November 18, 2008, a police team consisting of PO3 Christian A. Carvajal, Police Officer Lavarias, PO2 Bernard Arzadon, and PO3 Lucas Salonga responded to a telephone call that a man was firing a gun at the back of the PLDT Building in Pantal District, Dagupan City.
Upon arrival, officers saw two men walking—later identified as Peralta and his companion Larry Calimlim—holding a gun and a knife respectively.
The men became uneasy upon seeing the police officers; the officers apprehended them.
From Peralta, the police recovered a caliber .45 pistol with Serial Number 4517488 containing a magazine with five (5) live ammunitions; a knife was recovered from Calimlim.
The men were brought to the Region I Medical Center, and later to the community precinct for paraffin and gunpowder residue tests. The pistol and magazine with live ammunitions were endorsed to the duty investigator and later marked and admitted into evidence at trial.

Evidence Adduced by the Prosecution

Positive identification of Peralta by PO3 Carvajal as the person carrying the .45 pistol at the scene.
Physical seizure of a .45 caliber pistol Serial No. 4517488 with a magazine containing five (5) live ammunitions; the firearm and magazine were marked, identified, offered and properly admitted in evidence at trial.
Certification dated August 10, 2011 from the Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) of the Philippine National Police stating Peralta "is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and calibre, specifically Caliber .45 Pistol, make (unknown) with Serial Number 4517488 per verification from the records of this office as of this date."
Record references to paraffin and gunpowder residue testing having been performed at the precinct, although the prosecution did not present the test results at trial.

Defense Version and Contentions of the Accused

Peralta denied possessing a firearm and denied discharging a gun.
He claimed he was riding a motorcycle with Calimlim when they were flagged down by the police officers; he admitted only that a knife was recovered from Calimlim.
Peralta asserted impossibility of carrying a gun at the time and place of arrest because they were near the barangay hall and near the residences of Police Officer Salonga and mediaman Orly Navarro.
He alleged that upon arrival at the police station he was forced to admit possession of the firearm and that he and Calimlim were subjected to a paraffin test but were not furnished copies of the results.
Peralta claimed he and Calimlim were framed by the police officers in retaliation after his brother, who operated a "hataw" machine, went bankrupt and stopped giving "payola" to police officials.

RTC Ruling (Trial Court)

RTC Decision dated July 31, 2012 found Peralta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under PD 1866, as amended.
RTC sentenced Peralta to imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor (minimum) to eight (8) years of prision mayor (maximum), and imposed a fine of P30,000.00.
The RTC credited PO3 Carvajal's positive identification of Peralta at Pantal District holding a firearm and relied on the FEO Certification showing Peralta had no license to possess the firearm.

Court of Appeals Ruling

CA Decision dated May 29, 2015 affirmed the RTC conviction in toto.
CA agreed that prosecution established the elements of illegal possession: existence of firearm and ammunition and lack of corresponding license/permit by the possessor.
CA held that the warrantless arrest was valid under the plain view doctrine because Peralta was walking in Pantal District carrying a firearm in full view of the responding policemen who arrived in response to a call at the station.
CA gave no credence to Peralta’s allegation of police framing in retaliation for his brother’s alleged fail