This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2001-03-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under P.D. 1866, the essence of the crime is the accused's lack of license or permit to carry or possess firearm, ammunition, or explosive. Possession by itself is not prohibited by law.[13] In prosecutions for illegal possession of firearm, the element of absence of license to possess the firearm may be established through the testimony of or a certification from a representative of the Firearms and Explosives Bureau[14]of the Philippine National Police (FEB-PNP), attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm.[15] In this case, a representative of the FEB-PNP testified that accused-appellant was not a holder of any gun license.[16] Moreover, a certification[17]to that effect was presented to corroborate his testimony. These pieces of evidence suffice to establish the second element of the offense of possession of unlicensed firearms.[18] However, in a vain attempt to exculpate himself, accused-appellant presented for the first time an alleged firearm license, which was described as "Annex 2" of his petition. Accused-appellant's counsel admitted that said document was not presented below "for some reason."[19] Whatever those reasons are, he did not specify. The document, however, is dubious. It is too late in the day for accused-appellant to proffer this very vital piece of evidence which might exculpate him. First, the reception of evidence is best addressed to the trial court because it entails questions of fact. It should be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts.[20] Second, the document marked as "Annex 2" of the petition in G.R. No. 123943 is not the license referred to, but an order of the trial court resetting the date of arraignment.[21] Third, there is attached to the petition a firearm license[22] which is a mere photocopy and, as such, cannot be appreciated by this Court. Indeed, considering that this was the one piece of evidence which could spell accused-appellant's acquittal of the unlicensed firearm charge, and assuming that, as shown in the face of the license, it was issued on October 7, 1992, there should be no reason for its non-production during the trial. Fourth, and most importantly, the genuineness of the purported license becomes all the more suspect in view of the Certification issued by the FEO-PNP that accused-appellant was not a licensed firearm holder. | |||||
|
2000-08-01 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Explosive Unit to establish that the accused is not licensed to possess carbine caliber .30 with serial number 5611988. This omission is fatal to the prosecution.[58] In fine, the crime of the accused cannot be qualified as having been committed with an unlicensed, illegally possessed firearm. Prescinding from these premises, we have to modify the pecuniary liabilities imposed by the trial court. As the accused is liable only for homicide, he cannot be ordered to pay a fine of P30,000.00. The award of exemplary damages cannot also be given. Under Art. 2230 of the | |||||