Title
Valeroso vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 164815
Decision Date
Feb 22, 2008
Petitioner convicted for illegal firearm possession; search deemed valid during lawful arrest. Prosecution proved firearm unregistered to him; defense claims of legal issuance rejected. Penalty reduced retroactively.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 164815)

Key Dates

• July 10, 1996 – Petitioner arrested and searched; .38 charter-arms revolver and five live rounds seized.
• July 15, 1996 – Information for illegal possession of firearm filed.
• October 9, 1996 – Petitioner arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
• May 6, 1998 – RTC conviction; sentence imposed.
• May 4, 2004 – CA affirms with modification.
• February 22, 2008 – Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2 (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; due process).
• P.D. No. 1866 (1983), as amended by R.A. No. 8294 (1997) – unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition.
• Rules of Court: Rule 130, Sec. 44 (entries in official records as prima facie evidence); Rule 132, Sec. 34 (offer of evidence).
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 22 – retroactivity of penal laws favorable to the accused.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law.
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 45 – confiscation and forfeiture of crime instruments.

Facts

Upon serving a warrant for kidnapping with ransom, SPO2 Disuanco’s team arrested petitioner at the INP station, informed him of his rights, and conducted a search incident to arrest. They found a Charter Arms .38 revolver (Serial No. 52315) and five live rounds. PNP Firearms and Explosives Division certified that the weapon was registered to another individual. Petitioner contended the search was unlawful, that the gun was duly licensed (Memorandum Receipt dated July 1, 1993), and that he was denied counsel and family access while in custody.

Procedural History

• RTC (Quezon City): Found petitioner guilty under P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294. Imposed prision correccional (max) of 4 years, 2 months 1 day to 6 years and a P15,000 fine; ordered confiscation of the firearm.
• CA: Affirmed with penalty modification to 4 years, 2 months to 6 years of prision correccional; denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
• Supreme Court: Petition for review under Rule 45.

Issues for Consideration

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
  2. Whether the search and seizure were lawful and the evidence admissible.
  3. Whether the Memorandum Receipt conferred lawful possession.

Ruling on Proof of Illegal Possession

The Court confirmed that the prosecution established:
– Existence of the firearm and ammunition through direct testimony of SPO2 Disuanco and eyewitness identification by Adrian Yuson.
– Lack of license via PNP certification and testimony of Epifanio Deriquito, attesting that the weapon was registered to another person.
The certification was admissible under Rule 130, Sec. 44; its presumption went unrebutted.

Ruling on Legality of Search and Seizure

The search attendant to lawful arrest complied with Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. The trial court’s factual finding that the search was valid was upheld, as assessments of witness credibility are entitled to the highest respect.

Ruling on Memorandum Receipt

The presumption of regularity in public officers’ acts was rebutted. SPO3 Timbol admitted issuing the receipt on mere verbal instruction without proper authority or inventory controls. The receipt did not establish lawful possession.

Admissibility of the Firearm without Formal Offer

Even if the gun and ammunition had not been formally offered, the Supreme Court reiterated that testimony alone suffices to

...continue reading

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