This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-03-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We rule for respondents. Respondents' evidence are competent evidence, having been issued by government offices, certified to by authorized personnel who were clothed with authority and duty to issue such certifications. In the case of People v. Lazaro,[28] we held that the certification, without testimony of the person giving the certification, is sufficient and competent evidence which is an exception to the hearsay rule as provided in Section 44,[29] Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. Section 44 should be read in conjunction with Section 28,[30] Rule 132 of the same Rules which allows the admission of the said document.[31] | |||||
|
2000-10-30 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| offense;[63] the Court sees no need to discuss the first three (3) issues raised by accused-appellants. We reiterate that there can be no separate conviction for illegal possession of firearm under Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm being merely considered as an aggravating circumstance in the murder or homicide case.[64] Coming now to the fourth assigned error, accused-appellants contend that the trial court erred in convicting them of robbery with homicide despite the failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As stated at the outset, we are not persuaded by | |||||
|
2000-10-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the last issue, can the crime of illegal possession be proven even in case of non-presentation of the subject firearm? In cases involving illegal possession of firearms, the prosecution has the burden of proving the elements thereof, viz.: (a) the existence of the subject firearm; and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess the same.[23] As to the first requisite, the existence of the subject firearm can be best established by the presentation of the firearm owned or possessed by the accused. However, there is no requirement that the actual firearm itself must be presented in court. In People v. Orehuela,[24] the Court held that the existence of the firearm can be established by testimony, even without the presentation of the said firearm. Thus, the non-presentation of the subject firearm is not fatal to the prosecution of an illegal possession case. In this case, two credible witnesses testified that they saw appellant in possession of the subject firearm. PO1 Dominguez testified that he recovered a .38 cal. firearm with no serial number from appellant. Prosecution witness Tamargo saw appellant shoot at the victim. These witnesses who are total strangers to appellant and accused had no false motive to testify against them. The positive testimonies, therefore, prevail over the bare denials of appellant and accused. Worth noting, both were seen right in the midst of the locus criminis. As to the second requisite, the non-existence of the license or permit was sufficiently proven by the Certification (Exh. "A") of Sr. Inspector Mario M. Espino of the Philippine National Police, Firearms and Explosives Office that appellant is not a licensed/ registered firearms holder of any kind and caliber. | |||||