This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The criminal case for illegal possession of firearms, docketed as Criminal Case No. 34412, was assigned to Branch 2 where Judge Asuncion presided.[5] However, Canlas moved to quash the information in Criminal Case No. 34412 on the ground that under Republic Act No. 8294, the illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions could not be prosecuted as a separate offense if the firearm and ammunitions had been seized during the commission of the other crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.[6] | |||||
|
2014-03-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In his comment dated October 24, 2008,[12] Judge Asuncion maintained that he did not commit any indiscretion in denying the motions to withdraw the exhibits in Criminal Case No. 34412; that SC Circular No. 47-98 did not apply because the information in Criminal Case No. 34412 had been quashed, leaving the firearm as unoffered evidence; that the reasons proffered by Sr. Insp. Rosqueta and the Office of the City Prosecutor were unavailing, because the firearm could neither be forfeited in favor of the Government nor released to the Firearms and Explosives Division if the information, being void, did not validly charge Canlas with the alleged crime; that the firearm still impliedly belonged to Canlas; and that Sr. Insp. Rosqueta had usurped the authority of his superior officer and the City Prosecutor by taking it upon himself to file the motion to withdraw the firearm without the consent of either official. | |||||