Celino vs. Court of Appeals

Illegal possession of firearms may be prosecuted separately when the other crime charged is not among those enumerated in R.A. 8294 (murder, homicide, rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat), and the proviso "provided that no other crime was committed" necessitates a prior determination of guilt by final conviction, not merely an accusation.

On May 12, 2004, petitioner Angel Celino, Sr. was charged with two separate offenses before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City: violation of Section 2(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 6446 (gun ban) in Criminal Case No. C-137-04, and violation of Section 1, Paragraph 2 of R.A. 8294 (illegal possession of firearm) in Criminal Case No. C-138-04. Both charges stemmed from the same incident involving an unlicensed M16 armalite rifle with two loaded magazines.

• Charges: Two separate informations were filed against petitioner stemming from an incident on May 12, 2004, in Roxas City. Criminal Case No. C-137-04 charged him with carrying an M16 armalite rifle with loaded magazines outside his residence during the election period without COMELEC authority, violating the gun ban. Criminal Case No. C-138-04 charged him with possessing the same unlicensed firearm without the necessary permit, violating R.A. 8294.
• Motion to Quash: Upon arraignment for the gun ban charge, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Prior to his arraignment for the illegal possession charge, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the information, arguing that he cannot be prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms if he is also charged with violating the gun ban under the same set of facts.
• Lower Court Rulings: The trial court denied the Motion to Quash, relying on Margarejo v. Hon. Escoses, which held that a gun ban violation is not among the offenses enumerated under R.A. 8294 that would bar a separate prosecution for illegal possession. The trial court subsequently denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

• R.A. 8294 Proviso: Petitioner argued that the mere filing of an information for a COMELEC gun ban violation necessarily bars his prosecution for illegal possession of firearms under the same set of facts. He relied on Agote v. Lorenzo, People v. Ladjaalam, and similar cases to assert that illegal possession of firearms cannot be a separate offense when another crime is committed simultaneously.

• Separate Prosecution: The Solicitor General countered that the gun ban violation does not bar the separate prosecution for illegal possession of firearms, relying on Margarejo v. Hon. Escoses and People v. Valdez.

• Proper Remedy: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to challenge the appellate court's affirmance of the denial of a motion to quash.
• Effect of Gun Ban Charge on Illegal Possession: Whether the filing of an information for a COMELEC gun ban violation bars the separate prosecution of illegal possession of firearms under the proviso "provided that no other crime was committed" in R.A. 8294.

• Proper Remedy: Certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The proper remedy to challenge the appellate court's decision was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which should have been filed within 15 days from receipt of the resolution. Because the petition was filed 58 days late under Rule 65 with no justification proffered, and was merely a replication of the petition filed before the appellate court, the liberal application of the Rules was unwarranted.
• Effect of Gun Ban Charge on Illegal Possession: The proviso "provided that no other crime was committed" implies a prior determination of guilt by final conviction, not merely an accusation. Because petitioner was merely accused, and even entered a not guilty plea to the gun ban charge, the proviso does not yet apply. Furthermore, a gun ban violation is not among the crimes enumerated in R.A. 8294 (homicide, murder, rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat) that would absorb or aggravate the illegal possession charge; thus, the separate case for illegal possession should continue to be prosecuted.

• Certiorari as a substitute for lost appeal — Certiorari lies only when there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; it cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal.
• Interpretation of the proviso in R.A. 8294 — The word "committed" in the proviso "provided that no other crime was committed by the person arrested" implies a prior determination of guilt by final conviction resulting from successful prosecution or voluntary admission, in light of the constitutional presumption of innocence. Mere accusation does not trigger the proviso.
• Effect of unenumerated crimes on illegal possession of firearms — When the other offense involved is not one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294 (murder, homicide, rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat), the separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted. Conversely, if the other offense is enumerated, the illegal possession charge should be quashed, as the illegal possession will be tried together with the other offense either as an aggravating circumstance or an absorbed element.

• "The word 'committed' taken in its ordinary sense, and in light of the Constitutional presumption of innocence, necessarily implies a prior determination of guilt by final conviction resulting from successful prosecution or voluntary admission."
• "When the other offense involved is one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, any information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed because the illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense, either considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d’etat. Conversely, when the other offense involved is not one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted."

• Agote v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 142675, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 60 — Distinguished. Accused was exonerated of illegal possession because of their actual conviction for another crime (gun ban), not merely an accusation.
• People v. Ladjaalam, 395 Phil. 1 (2000) — Distinguished. Held that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession; however, this applies when the other crime is actually committed (convicted), not merely charged.
• Margarejo v. Hon. Escoses, 417 Phil. 506 (2001) — Followed. Affirmed the denial of a motion to quash an information for illegal possession of firearm because the other offense (gun ban) is not enumerated under R.A. 8294.
• People v. Valdez, 364 Phil. 259 (1999) — Followed. Held that pending cases for illegal possession should continue to be prosecuted if no other crimes expressly indicated in R.A. 8294 are involved.

• Section 1, Republic Act No. 8294 (amending P.D. 1866) — Penalizes unlawful possession of firearms, providing a higher penalty for high-powered firearms "provided, however, that no other crime was committed by the person arrested." Applied to rule that the word "committed" requires final conviction, and that a gun ban violation is not an enumerated crime that absorbs or aggravates the illegal possession charge.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs special civil actions for certiorari. Applied to dismiss the petition as an improper substitute for a lost appeal.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. Identified as the proper remedy that petitioner failed to timely pursue.
• Article III, Section 14(2), 1987 Constitution — Presumption of innocence. Applied to construe "committed" in R.A. 8294 as requiring final conviction, not mere accusation.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing (On official leave), Antonio T. Carpio, Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.