G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013 - Supreme Court of the Philippines
G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013 - Supreme Court of the Philippines G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013 - Supreme Court of the Philippines
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 192727establish the following: (1) the existence of the firearm which is the corpusdelicti; and (2) the absence of a license or permit for the firearm.The CA’s DecisionOn June 24, 2008, the CA rendered the herein assailed decision 18which affirmed in toto the May 23, 2003 Judgment of the RTC. The CAheld that the prosecution was able to establish the existence of the firearmnotwithstanding that it was not presented as evidence. It pointed out that thestraightforward and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on thepetitioner’s possession of a firearm during the April 3, 1995 fiestacelebration in Barangay Biasong and the circumstances surrounding it hadamply established the corpus delicti. In any case, the CA asserted that in anindictment for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions and violationof election gun ban, the production of the firearm itself is not required forconviction.Further, the CA held that there was no necessity on the part of theprosecution to prove that the petitioner had no license or permit to possess afirearm since the same had already been admitted by the petitioner duringthe trial.The petitioner sought a reconsideration of the June 24, 2008 Decisionof the CA, maintaining that the prosecution failed to substantiate theelements of the crimes charged against him. Additionally, the petitioneraverred that Criminal Case No. 3824 for illegal possession of firearms andammunitions should be dismissed pursuant to the ruling of this Court inAgote v. Judge Lorenzo 19 which declared that an accused is not liable forillegal possession of firearm if the firearm was used in the commission of anoffense such as a violation of the election gun ban.1819Supra note 1.502 Phil. 318 (2005).
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 192727On March 4, 2009, the CA issued a resolution 20 which partly grantedthe petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the decretal portion of whichreads:WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated July 18,2008 is PARTLY GRANTED. Criminal Case No. 3824 is DISMISSEDand accused-appellant’s conviction in Criminal Case No. 2074 forViolation of Section 261, par. (q) of the Omnibus Election Code,AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED. 21The CA ruled that under prevailing jurisprudence there can be noseparate offense of simple illegal possession of firearm if the unlicensedfirearm is used in the commission of any crime. Considering that thepetitioner was convicted of violation of election gun ban, the CA held thathe can no longer be convicted for illegal possession of firearm.Nevertheless, the CA found no reason to reverse the conviction of thepetitioner for violation of election gun ban.On April 7, 2009, the petitioner, with leave of court, filed a “SecondPartial Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment for Violation of theOmnibus Election Code only”. On May 5, 2010, the CA issued a resolutiondenying the second partial motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner.Undaunted, the petitioner filed the instant petition.IssueThe petitioner submits a lone issue for this Court’s resolution:[WHETHER] THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTEDGRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACKOR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RESOLVED TO2021Supra note 2.Id. at 42.
- Page 2 and 3: Resolution 2 G.R. No. 192727(CA) in
- Page 4 and 5: Resolution 4 G.R. No. 192727After t
- Page 8 and 9: Resolution 8 G.R. No. 192727DENY TH
- Page 10 and 11: Resolution 10 G.R. No. 192727Howeve
- Page 12: Resolution 12 G.R. No. 192727dated
Resolution 7 G.R. <strong>No</strong>. <strong>192727</strong>On March 4, 2009, <strong>the</strong> CA issued a resolution 20 which partly granted<strong>the</strong> petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, <strong>the</strong> decretal portion <strong>of</strong> whichreads:WHEREFORE, <strong>the</strong> Motion for Reconsideration dated July 18,2008 is PARTLY GRANTED. Criminal Case <strong>No</strong>. 3824 is DISMISSEDand accused-appellant’s conviction in Criminal Case <strong>No</strong>. 2074 forViolation <strong>of</strong> Section 261, par. (q) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Omnibus Election Code,AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED. 21The CA ruled that under prevailing jurisprudence <strong>the</strong>re can be noseparate <strong>of</strong>fense <strong>of</strong> simple illegal possession <strong>of</strong> firearm if <strong>the</strong> unlicensedfirearm is used in <strong>the</strong> commission <strong>of</strong> any crime. Considering that <strong>the</strong>petitioner was convicted <strong>of</strong> violation <strong>of</strong> election gun ban, <strong>the</strong> CA held tha<strong>the</strong> can no longer be convicted for illegal possession <strong>of</strong> firearm.Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> CA found no reason to reverse <strong>the</strong> conviction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>petitioner for violation <strong>of</strong> election gun ban.On April 7, 2009, <strong>the</strong> petitioner, with leave <strong>of</strong> court, filed a “SecondPartial Motion for Reconsideration <strong>of</strong> Judgment for Violation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Omnibus Election Code only”. On May 5, 2010, <strong>the</strong> CA issued a resolutiondenying <strong>the</strong> second partial motion for reconsideration filed by <strong>the</strong> petitioner.Undaunted, <strong>the</strong> petitioner filed <strong>the</strong> instant petition.IssueThe petitioner submits a lone issue for this <strong>Court</strong>’s resolution:[WHETHER] THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTEDGRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACKOR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RESOLVED TO2021Supra note 2.Id. at 42.
Change language