G.R. No. 164815 - Valeroso vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 164815)

Factual Background

On July 10, 1996, police officers assigned to serve a warrant of arrest for kidnapping with ransom approached petitioner at the Integrated National Police Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City, and placed him under arrest. During a custodial search, officers found tucked in his waist a Charter Arms .38 revolver bearing Serial No. 52315 and five live ammunition. Petitioner was brought to a police station and the firearm was later verified by the Firearms and Explosives Division at Camp Crame as registered in the name of Raul Palencia Salvatierra of Sampaloc, Manila. A certification reflecting that verification was introduced in evidence.

Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment and proceeded to trial. The RTC found petitioner guilty on May 6, 1998 of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, sentenced him to prision correccional in its maximum period (four years, two months and one day to six years) and imposed a fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos, and ordered confiscation of the firearm. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and he appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Evidence and Witnesses

The prosecution presented SPO2 Antonio M. Disuanco, who testified to the arrest and seizure, and Epifanio Deriquito, who testified to the verification at the Firearms and Explosives Division and presented the certification signed by the chief records officer. The defense produced petitioner, SPO3 Agustin R. Timbol, Jr., and Adrian Yuson. Petitioner testified that the police entry and search of his boarding-house room were unlawful, that the raiding party lacked a search warrant, and that the firearm had been covered by a memorandum receipt previously issued to him. Timbol testified that he issued a Memorandum Receipt dated July 1, 1993 for the firearm upon the verbal instruction of Col. Angelito Moreno. Yuson testified as an eyewitness to the entry, the presence of guns, the search of petitioner’s room, and the discovery of the firearm in petitioner’s locker.

The Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, that the search and seizure were illegal and the seized firearm the fruit of a poisonous tree, and that the Memorandum Receipt proved lawful possession. The People maintained that the prosecution established the two essential elements of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition: the existence of the firearm and petitioner’s lack of corresponding license or permit.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals, by decision dated May 4, 2004, affirmed the RTC judgment with modification of the penalty to prision correccional in its minimum term of four years and two months up to six years as maximum. The CA otherwise affirmed the conviction and its factual findings. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated August 3, 2004.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court, through the Third Division, affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in full on February 22, 2008. The Court held that the prosecution satisfactorily proved the existence of the firearm and ammunition and petitioner’s lack of license to possess them. The Court sustained the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments and applied the amended penalty scheme under R.A. No. 8294 as more favorable to the accused, with appropriate computation under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Evidence

The Court reiterated that the prosecution must prove two elements in illegal possession of firearm and ammunition: (1) existence of the firearm and ammunition, and (2) absence of the corresponding license or permit. The Court found the first element established by the testimony of SPO2 Disuanco, by Yuson’s identification, and by petitioner’s own admission. The second element was proven by the testimony of Deriquito and by the certification from the Firearms and Explosives Division showing the firearm was registered to another person. The Court held that such certification falls within the exception to hearsay under Rule 130, Section 44, Rules of Court, as an entry in an official record and constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The Court further noted that the failure of petitioner to produce rebutting evidence left the certification unrebutted.

Credibility, Presumptions, and the Memorandum Receipt

The Court accorded great weight to the trial court’s credibility determinations and refused to disturb its acceptance of the prosecution’s version. The Court observed that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties accorded to police officers is rebuttable. It found that the prosecution effectively rebutted the presumption regarding the alleged Memorandum Receipt when cross-examination of SPO3 Timbol revealed irregularity and unusual facility in the issuance of the Receipt, undermining its authenticity and regularity. The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that the firearm was the fruit of an unlawful search, concluding that the matter largely concerned credibility determinations properly left to the trial court.

Offer of Evidence and Nonpresentation of Firearm

The Court addressed petitioner’s claim that the firearm and ammunition were not formally offered in evidence in violation of Rule 132, Section 34, Rules of Court, and observed that the record shows the prosecution did offer the items. The Court added that, even if the physical exhibits had not been formally offered, conviction may be based on competent testimony establishing the existence of an unlicensed firearm, citing People v. Orehuela and subsequent authorities. The Court found testimony by Disuanco and identification by Yuson, together with petitioner’s admission, sufficient to establish the firearm’s existence.

Penal Law Amendment, Retroactivity, and Sentence Computation

The Court examined the effect of R.A. No. 8294, which amended P.D. No. 1866

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 164815)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Sr. Insp. Jerry C. Valeroso filed a petition under Rule 45 seeking review of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming with modification his conviction for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
The People of the Philippines prosecuted the case by information charging Valeroso with unlawful possession of a Charter Arms .38 revolver and five live ammunition.
The Regional Trial Court, Quezon City convicted petitioner and imposed a term within prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine, and the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the penalty.
Petitioner arraigned with counsel de parte Atty. Oscar Pagulayan pleaded not guilty and thereafter exhausted trial and appellate remedies prior to the present petition.

Key Factual Allegations

On July 10, 1996, police officers under a dispatch order conducted surveillance and apprehended petitioner at the INP Central Station, Culiat, Quezon City, as he was about to board a tricycle.
The arresting team performed a bodily search and found tucked in petitioner’s waist a Charter Arms .38 revolver bearing Serial No. 52315 together with five live ammunition.
A verification by the Firearms and Explosives Division at Camp Crame showed the firearm was registered to Raul Palencia Salvatierra, and the FED issued a certification to that effect signed by Edwin C. Roque.
Petitioner claimed the search was warrantless and illegal, that he was forcibly taken from his boarding house by armed men, that the firearm was licensed and covered by a Memorandum Receipt dated July 1, 1993, and that the police confiscated his firearm documentation.
Witness Adrian Yuson corroborated the forcible entry and search and testified that the subject firearm was recovered from petitioner’s locker during the search.

Issues Presented

Whether the prosecution proved petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the search and seizure were illegal and rendered the firearm inadmissible as the fruit of the poisonous tree.
Whether the Memorandum Receipt issued in favor of petitioner established lawful possession and warranted acquittal.

Trial Evidence

The prosecution presented testimony of SPO2 Antonio M. Disuanco establishing the arrest and seizure and testimony of Epifanio Deriquito who relayed the FED verification and presented the certification.
The prosecution introduced Exhibits E and E-1 to E-5 consisting of the firearm identification and the five live ammunition, and Exhibit C as the FED certification.
The defense presented petitioner’s own testimony, testimony of SPO3 Agustin R. Timbol, Jr. who identified a Memorandum Receipt and testified it was issued upon verbal instruction of Col. Angelito Moreno, and testimony of Adrian Yuson describing the raid and discovery of the firearm.
The record reflected cross-examination that exposed irregularities in the issuance and custody surrounding the Memorandum Receipt.

RTC and CA Dispositions

The RTC, on May 6, 1998, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended, and sentenced him to prision correccional in its maximum period and imposed a fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos, and ordered confiscation of the firearm.
The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on August 27, 1998.
The Court of Appeals, on May 4, 2004, affirmed the conviction but modi