Del Rosario vs. People

In prosecutions for illegal possession of firearms, the negative fact of the absence of a license is an essential ingredient that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt; a certification of non-licensure that names a person other than the accused cannot prevail over a valid firearm license duly issued to the latter, and possession of a firearm under an expired but uncancelled and unrevoked license was not unlawful before R.A. No. 8294 took effect on July 7, 1997. Items seized that are not particularly described in a valid search warrant are inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree unless the plain view doctrine applies, and that doctrine does not obtain where the object was discovered not inadvertently but through a meticulous search.

Vicente del Rosario y Nicolas was a resident of Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan, and the holder of a firearm license issued by the Firearms and Explosives Division of the Philippine National Police. Firearms licensing at the time was governed by P.D. No. 1866, whose implementing rules vested the power to issue licenses in the discretion of the Chief of Constabulary, later the Chief of the Philippine National Police. R.A. No. 8294, which amended P.D. No. 1866 and made possession of a firearm under an expired license unlawful, took effect only on July 7, 1997.

Sometime in May 1996, the police received a report that Vicente del Rosario y Nicolas, a resident of Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan, was in possession of certain firearms without the necessary licenses. Acting on the report, P/Sr. Insp. Jerito Adique of the PNP Criminal Investigation Group at Camp Olivas, Pampanga inquired from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Division whether the report was true. On May 10, 1996, P/Sr. Insp. Edwin C. Roque of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Division issued a certification (Exhibit L) stating that per records in his office, the appellant is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber. Armed with that certification, P/Sr. Insp. Adique applied for a search warrant.

On June 13, 1996, Judge Gil Fernandez, Sr. of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217 issued a search warrant (Exhibit A) authorizing the search of the residence of appellant at Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan. On June 15, 1996, at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning, a team led by P/Sr. Insp. Adique went to Norzagaray to serve the warrant. Before proceeding to the residence of the appellant, the police officers requested Barangay Chairman Rogelio de Silva and Barangay Councilman Aurelio Panteleon to accompany them in the implementation of the warrant. Upon arrival at the house, the police officers introduced themselves to the wife of appellant; when the appellant came out, P/Sr. Insp. Adique informed him that they had a search warrant and that they were authorized to search his house. After appellant gave his permission, the police officers conducted a search of the house.

The search yielded (a) a caliber .45 pistol with Serial No. 703792 with five magazines of caliber .45 (Exhibits B and H) found at the master's bedroom; (b) five magazines of 5.56 M-16 rifle and two radios (Exhibits C to C-4) found in the room of appellant's daughter; and (c) a caliber .22 revolver with Serial No. 48673 (Exhibit F) containing eight pieces of live ammunition (Exhibit M) found in the kitchen of the house. When asked about his license to possess the firearms, the appellant failed to produce any, which prompted the police officers to seize the subject firearms. SPO2 Marion Montezon, one of the searching officers, prepared three separate inventories of the seized items (Exhibits H, M and N), signed by P/Sr. Insp. Adique, the appellant, and the barangay officials who witnessed the search; thereafter he prepared a certification of orderly search (Exhibit I) signed by the appellant and the barangay officials attesting to the orderly conduct of the search.

For his defense, appellant contended that he had a license for the caliber .45 pistol recovered in his bedroom and that the other items seized during the search, including the caliber .22 revolver, were merely planted by the police officers. He likewise assailed the manner in which the search was carried out, claiming that the police officers just barged into his house without asking permission, and that the barangay officials arrived only after the police had already finished the search. According to petitioner, when he showed P/Sr. Insp. Adique the license for his .45 caliber pistol, the officer told him that since his firearm was licensed he would return it in exchange for ten thousand pesos and information on who among the people in the barangay had unlicensed firearms; when petitioner refused, the officer told him that it was his word against the officer's and that the court would believe the officer because he was a police officer.

On June 17, 1996, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Eufracio S. Marquez filed with the Regional Trial Court, Bulacan, Malolos an Information charging petitioner with violation of P.D. No. 1866, and on June 25, 1996, the trial court arraigned him, petitioner pleading not guilty. On July 2, 1998, the trial court rendered a judgment of conviction, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correctional as maximum, and to pay a fine of P15,000.00. The trial court held that the copy of the license presented was blurred and that in any event it could rely on the May 10, 1996 certification of P/Sr. Insp. Roque; it further ruled that it was a matter of judicial notice that a caliber .45 firearm cannot be licensed to a private individual. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, and the appellate court's factual findings, as set out above, were drawn from the evidence of the prosecution and the defense.

• Validity of the Search Warrant: Petitioner submitted that the search conducted at his residence was illegal because the search warrant was issued in violation of the Constitution, and that the evidence seized was consequently inadmissible.
• License for the .45 Caliber Firearm: Petitioner submitted that he had a license for the .45 caliber firearm and ammunition seized in his bedroom.
• Planted and Illegally Seized Items: Petitioner submitted that the other firearm, a .22 caliber revolver seized in a drawer at the kitchen of his house, a magazine for a 5.56 mm. cal. Armalite rifle, and two 2-way radios found in his daughter's bedroom were either planted by the police or illegally seized, as they were not mentioned in the search warrant.
• Misidentification in the Certification: In his motion for reconsideration and/or new trial, petitioner contended that the certification issued by the Chief, Firearms and Explosives Division, Philippine National Police stating that the person named therein had not been issued a firearm license referred to a certain Vicente "Vic" del Rosario of Barangay Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan, not to him, who comes from Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan, and who has a valid firearm license.

• Identity of the Licensee: The prosecution submitted that there was only one Barangay Tigbe in Norzagaray, Bulacan, and that the reference to Barangay "Bigte" in the certification of non-licensure was a typographical error.

• License for the .45 Caliber Pistol: Whether petitioner had a license for the .45 caliber Colt pistol and ammunition seized in his bedroom.
• Seizure of Items Not Described in the Search Warrant: Whether the .22 caliber revolver seized in a drawer at the kitchen of his house, a magazine for 5.56 mm. cal. Armalite rifle, and two 2-way radios found in his daughter's bedroom were planted by the police or were illegally seized.

• License for the .45 Caliber Pistol: Yes. Petitioner was the holder of a valid firearm license for the .45 caliber Colt pistol seized in his bedroom, the certification of non-licensure having referred to a different individual and the license having been extended and subsequently renewed; in any event, possession of the firearm under an expired but uncancelled and unrevoked license was not unlawful on June 15, 1996, R.A. No. 8294 not having taken effect until July 7, 1997.
• Seizure of Items Not Described in the Search Warrant: Yes, the seizure was illegal. Seizure is limited to those items particularly described in a valid search warrant, and the plain view doctrine did not apply because the .22 caliber revolver was not inadvertently found in plain view but was discovered as a result of a meticulous search in the kitchen and was not mentioned in the warrant.

• License for the .45 Caliber Pistol: Although factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial courts are normally not reviewed, the case fell within the exceptions because the findings of the lower courts directly contradicted the evidence. The trial court relied on the May 10, 1996 certification of P/Sr. Insp. Edwin C. Roque stating that Vicente "Vic" del Rosario of Barangay Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan was not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber. Petitioner, however, is Vicente del Rosario y Nicolas of Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan, and the Court took judicial notice of the existence of both Barangay Tigbe and Barangay Bigte in Norzagaray, Bulacan. The trial court erred grievously in not taking judicial notice of the barangays within its territorial jurisdiction and in believing the prosecution's submission that there was only Barangay Tigbe and that "Bigte" was a typographical error. While a court may rely on the certification of the Chief, Firearms and Explosives Division on the absence of a firearm license, such certification referred to another individual and could not prevail over a valid firearm license duly issued to petitioner. Petitioner presented the printed computerized copy of License No. RCL 1614021915 issued to him on July 13, 1993, expiring in January 1995, under the signature of Reynaldo V. Velasco, Sr. Supt. (GSC) PNP, Chief, FEO; on the dorsal side was stamped the words "Validity of computerized license is extended until renewed license is printed," dated January 17, 1995, signed by Police Chief Inspector Franklin S. Alfabeto, Chief, License Branch, FEO. Coupled with this indefinite extension, petitioner paid the license fees for the extension of the license for the next two-year period, as evidenced by official receipt No. 7615186 dated January 17, 1995. Petitioner presented the license to the head of the raiding team, who, as a senior police officer belonging to the same national police organization, could easily determine the genuineness and authenticity of the computerized printed license, including the clearly visible stamp and the signature of the authorized signing official; his rejection of the license on the ground that it was expired did not make possession unlawful. Assuming the license was expired during the period January 1995 to January 1997, possession of the firearm in question during that period was still not illegal: the firearm was kept at home, not carried outside the residence, and on June 15, 1996, possession of a firearm with an expired license was not considered unlawful provided the license had not been cancelled or revoked. R.A. No. 8294, providing that possession of a firearm with an expired license was unlawful, took effect only on July 7, 1997, and could not be given retroactive effect. Under firearm licensing regulations, the renewal of a firearm license was automatically applied for upon payment of the license fees for the renewal period; the expired license, not having been cancelled or revoked, served as temporary authority to possess the firearm until the renewed license was issued, and the applicant could keep the gun at home pending renewal and the issuance of a printed computerized license. A renewed license was in fact issued on January 17, 1997, for the succeeding two-year period, and on January 25, 1995 the Chief, Philippine National Police issued petitioner a permit to carry firearm outside residence valid until January 25, 1996, which presupposes that the holder is duly licensed to possess the firearm. The Court likewise noted the certification dated June 25, 1996 of P/Sr. Insp. Roque that Vicente N. del Rosario of Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan is a licensed/registered holder of Pistol, Colt caliber .45 with serial number 70G23792, covered by computerized license issued dated June 15, 1995 with an expiry date of January 1997, and the reinforcing certification dated August 27, 1999 stating that the same person was issued firearm license No. RL-C1614021915 for the same pistol for the period July 13, 1993 to January 1995, with the extension at the back thereof for 1995 to 1997. In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution bears the burden of proving (a) the existence of the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the license or permit to possess the same; the negative fact of lack or absence of license is an essential ingredient that must not only be alleged but also proved beyond reasonable doubt. While illegal possession of firearm is a malum prohibitum for which no malice or intent to commit a crime need be proved, there must be possession coupled with animus possidendi. The trial court's reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties was a flagrant error because the police officer's testimony was directly contradictory to the official records of the Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP, which must prevail, and because the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. The trial court was likewise misguided in holding that it is a matter of judicial notice that a caliber .45 firearm cannot be licensed to a private individual, a ruling with no basis either in law or in jurisprudence; no law prohibits the licensing of a .45 caliber pistol, the power to issue the license being vested in the discretion of the Chief of Constabulary, now the Chief, Philippine National Police.

• Seizure of Items Not Described in the Search Warrant: Section 2, Article III of the Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant, absent which such search and seizure becomes unreasonable. Supporting jurisprudence outlines the requisites for a search warrant's validity, the absence of even one of which causes its downright nullification: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. Seizure is limited to those items particularly described in a valid search warrant, and searching officers are without discretion regarding what articles they shall seize. Evidence seized on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree; in the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. The .22 caliber revolver with Serial No. 48673, found in a drawer at the kitchen of petitioner's house, was not mentioned in the search warrant applied for and issued for the search of petitioner's house; it was not found inadvertently and in plain view but as a result of a meticulous search in the kitchen, and its seizure was therefore illegal. While the police may, as an exception, seize without warrant an illegally possessed firearm or any contraband inadvertently found in plain view, the seizure of evidence in plain view applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object; specifically, seizure in plain view is justified when there is (a) a prior valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. Petitioner thus rightly rejected the firearm as planted and not belonging to him, and the prosecution failed to prove that the firearm was in the effective possession or control of the petitioner without a license; in illegal possession of firearms, the possessor must know of the existence of the subject firearm in his possession or control, and the kind of possession punishable under P.D. No. 1866 is one where the accused possessed a firearm either physically or constructively with animus possidendi, or intention to possess the same. Absent animus possidendi, the possessor of a firearm incurs no criminal liability. The same conclusion applied to the 5.56 caliber magazine found in the bedroom of petitioner's daughter, whose seizure was invalid and whose admission in evidence was inadmissible. As to the two 2-way radios seized in the daughter's bedroom, there was absolutely no reason for the seizure: the radios were not contraband per se, the National Telecommunications Commission may license two-way radios at its discretion, the burden was on the prosecution to show that the radios were not licensed, and the National Telecommunications Commission is the sole agency authorized to seize unlicensed two-way radios. More importantly, the radios were not mentioned in the search warrant, and petitioner was not even charged with illegal possession of the two-way radios; their confiscation was therefore clearly illegal.

• Elements of Illegal Possession of Firearms — To convict an accused for illegal possession of firearms and explosives under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, two essential elements must be indubitably established: (a) the existence of the subject firearm or explosive, which may be proved by the presentation of the subject firearm or explosive or by the testimony of witnesses who saw the accused in possession of the same; and (b) the negative fact that the accused had no license or permit to own or possess the firearm or explosive, which fact may be established by the testimony or certification of a representative of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit that the accused has no license or permit to possess the subject firearm or explosive. The absence of license and legal authority constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense that the prosecution must not only allege but also prove beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish the second element because its certification of non-licensure named a different individual, while petitioner produced official records showing a valid and subsisting license.

• Animus Possidendi — Although illegal possession of firearm is a malum prohibitum for which no malice or intent to commit a crime need be proved, conviction still requires possession coupled with animus possidendi, or the intent to possess. The possessor must know of the existence of the subject firearm in his possession or control; absent animus possidendi, the possessor of a firearm incurs no criminal liability. The doctrine was applied to the .22 caliber revolver, which petitioner denied owning and which the prosecution failed to prove was within his effective possession or control.

• Possession Under an Expired License — Before R.A. No. 8294 took effect on July 7, 1997, possession of a firearm with an expired license was not considered unlawful provided the license had not been cancelled or revoked, and the amendatory law could not be given retroactive effect. Under firearm licensing regulations, the renewal of a firearm license was automatically applied for upon payment of the license fees for the renewal period; the expired license served as temporary authority to possess the firearm until the renewed license was issued, during which period the applicant could keep the gun at home and was not obliged to surrender the weapon.

• Presumption of Regularity vs. Presumption of Innocence — The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. Where the testimony of a police officer is directly contradictory to the official records of the Firearms and Explosives Division of the PNP, the official records must prevail.

• Plain View Doctrine — Seizure of evidence in plain view is justified only when there is (a) a prior valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. The doctrine applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. It did not apply to the .22 caliber revolver, which was found as a result of a meticulous search of the kitchen and was not mentioned in the warrant.

• Fruit of the Poisonous Tree — Evidence seized on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree; it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. The rule supplied the basis for excluding the .22 caliber revolver, the 5.56 mm magazine, and the two-way radios from evidence.

• Requisites of a Valid Search Warrant — (1) It must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. Seizure is limited to those items particularly described in a valid search warrant, and searching officers are without discretion regarding what articles they shall seize.

• Judicial Notice of Barangays — A court takes judicial notice of the existence of barangays within its territorial jurisdiction. The trial court erred in not taking judicial notice of both Barangay Tigbe and Barangay Bigte in Norzagaray, Bulacan, and in accepting the prosecution's submission that "Bigte" was a mere typographical error.

• Certification of Non-Licensure — A court may rely on the certification of the Chief, Firearms and Explosives Division on the absence of a firearm license, but such certification cannot prevail over a valid firearm license duly issued to the accused where the certification refers to another individual.

• "Possession of any firearm becomes unlawful only if the necessary permit or license therefor is not first obtained. The absence of license and legal authority constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of firearm and every ingredient or essential element of an offense must be shown by the prosecution by proof beyond reasonable doubt." — States the ratio decidendi on the first issue: the negative fact of non-licensure is an essential element that the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt, and it was not established here.

• "On June 15, 1996, at the time of the seizure of the firearm in question, possession of firearm with an expired license was not considered unlawful, provided that the license had not been cancelled or revoked." — Fixes the temporal rule governing possession under an expired license and explains why R.A. No. 8294 could not reach the June 15, 1996 seizure.

• "The seizure of evidence in 'plain view' applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object." — The canonical formulation of the plain view doctrine as applied to reject the warrantless seizure of the .22 caliber revolver found in the kitchen drawer.

• "Evidence seized on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and excluded for being the proverbial 'fruit of a poisonous tree.' In the language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding." — States the exclusionary consequence of the illegal seizure, the ground for excluding the .22 caliber revolver, the 5.56 mm magazine, and the two-way radios.

• People vs. de Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 [1994] — Clarified the meaning of possession for purposes of convicting a person under P.D. No. 1866, distinguishing criminal intent from intent to possess and requiring animus possidendi; relied upon in resolving the charge over the .22 caliber revolver.
• People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 [1999] — Source of the plain view doctrine requisites applied by the Court, drawn from the concurring opinion of Justice Artemio V. Panganiban.
• People vs. Valdez, G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000 — Held that evidence seized on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree; cited for the inadmissibility of the illegally seized items.
• People vs. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868 [1998] — Enunciated the requisites of the plain view doctrine; applied to reject the seizure of the .22 caliber revolver.
• People vs. Khor, 307 SCRA 295 [1999] — Held that the absence of a license is an essential ingredient of illegal possession of firearms that the prosecution must allege and prove beyond reasonable doubt.
• People vs. Cortez, 324 SCRA 335 [2000] — Enumerated the two essential elements of illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, and stressed that the essence of the crime is the accused's lack of license or permit.
• People vs. Lubo, 101 Phil. 179 [1957] — Held that illegal possession of firearms is a malum prohibitum requiring no malice or intent to commit a crime, but that possession must be coupled with animus possidendi.
• Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 325 Phil. 762 [1996] — Outlined the requisites for the validity of a search warrant, which the Court recited in resolving the second issue.
• Uy Kheytin vs. Villareal, 42 Phil. 886 [1933] — Held that seizure is limited to the items particularly described in a valid search warrant and that searching officers have no discretion over what articles to seize.
• People vs. Mendoza, 301 SCRA 66 [1999] — Cited for the rule that R.A. No. 8294 could not be given retroactive effect.
• Pastrano vs. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 277 [1997] — Held that a permit to carry a firearm outside residence presupposes that the party to whom it is issued is duly licensed to possess the firearm in question.
• People vs. Figueroa, G.R. No. 134056, July 6, 2000 — Held that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence.
• Salamera vs. Sandiganbayan, 303 SCRA 217 [1999] — Cited for the error of taking judicial notice of a disputed fact without hearing and receiving evidence thereon.
• People vs. Montilla, 349 Phil. 640 [1998] — Cited for the general rule that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant.

• Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and renders evidence obtained in violation thereof inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The provision supplied the general rule and the exclusionary sanction applied to the items seized beyond the search warrant's description.
• P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294 — Punishes illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The Court held that the amendment penalizing possession of a firearm with an expired license took effect only on July 7, 1997 and could not be applied retroactively to the June 15, 1996 seizure.
• Section 2, Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D. No. 1866 — Vests the power to issue firearm licenses in the discretion of the Chief of Constabulary, now the Chief, Philippine National Police; cited to refute the trial court's ruling that a .45 caliber pistol cannot be licensed to a private individual.
• Rep. Act No. 3846, as amended — Governs radio licensing; cited for the ruling that the National Telecommunications Commission may license two-way radios at its discretion and is the sole agency authorized to seize unlicensed two-way radios.

Davide, Jr., Puno, Kapunan, Ynares-Santiago, JJ.