You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1057?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[US v. RICARDO SAMSON](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1057?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c1057}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 5807, Jul 27, 1910 ]

US v. RICARDO SAMSON +

DECISION

16 Phil. 323

[ G. R. No. 5807, July 27, 1910 ]

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO SAMSON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

ARELLANO, C.J.:

On the 9th of July,  1908, while  Ricardo Samson was walking  through a street of the town of Santa Rosa, Province of Nueva Ecija, with a  shotgun and nine cartridges in his custody,  the gun and  the  ammunition were seized by some  municipal policemen.

The Court of  First Instance  of the said province sentenced him to pay a fine of P50, or to subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency, at the rate of one day for each P2.50, and costs.

It was proved  that the defendant, while traveling on foot, was carrying a shotgun that belonged to Pablo Padilla.   It was also shown  that Pablo Padilla had a proper permit to possess the arm, and that  the defendant  was carrying  the gun at the time because Pablo  Padilla had sent him on ahead  with it, as the latter  was going on foot and  the former was to follow him on horseback, to hunt.
"But had you arranged with him to  meet him  somewhere?" asked the fiscal.

"Answer. Yes, sir.

"Q. At the place where he was apprehended?

"A. Yes,  sir.

"Q. Does the shotgun that was taken by the police from the possession of Samson belong to you ?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Is the permit in your name?

"A. Yes, sir, the permit so states.

"THE FISCAL. That is all."
The custody which the  defendant Samson  had  of  the arm was not with the intention of possessing it.  Carrying a gun by order of the owner does not constitute illegal possession  of  firearms.   The  defendant is acquitted  of  the charge.

The judgment  appealed from is reversed, with the costs of both instances de oficio.  So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.

tags