Pastrano vs. Court of Appeals

A Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence (PTCFOR) and a Mission Order cannot substitute for a license to possess a firearm; they merely authorize the holder to carry an already licensed firearm outside their residence. Because a PTCFOR presupposes a valid license, and a license to possess is personal and non-transferable, possessing a firearm based solely on a PTCFOR, a Mission Order, or a license issued to a former owner constitutes illegal possession under P.D. No. 1866.

Following the death of Clyde Pastrano, who was suspected of being a victim of foul play by his father, two of Pedrito Pastrano's other sons reported to Capt. Rodolfo Mañoza of the Philippine Constabulary that their father and his common-law wife kept unlicensed firearms in their home. The sons executed a joint affidavit attesting to this personal knowledge. Based on the affidavit and the subsequent examination of the sons by a judge, a search warrant was issued and served at Pastrano's residence, resulting in the seizure of two revolvers and corresponding ammunition.

• The Report and Affidavit: On February 13, 1989, students reported to Capt. Rodolfo Mañoza that petitioner Pedrito Pastrano had beaten his son Clyde and possessed firearms. Clyde subsequently died. On February 20, 1989, Pastrano's two other sons, James Clement and Clinton Steve, reported to Capt. Mañoza that their father and his common-law wife kept unlicensed firearms. They executed a joint affidavit stating they had personal knowledge of three firearms in their father's bedroom.
• The Search and Seizure: On the same day, Capt. Mañoza applied for a search warrant. Judge Teodorico M. Durias examined the two brothers and issued the warrant. Law enforcement officers served the warrant at Pastrano's residence and seized a .22 cal. Magnum revolver with one round of ammunition and a .32 cal. Colt revolver with six rounds of ammunition.
• The Charge and Defense: Pastrano and his common-law wife were charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition under P.D. No. 1866. Pastrano admitted owning the .32 cal. revolver but claimed the .22 cal. revolver belonged to a cousin and was merely kept for safekeeping. He presented a Mission Order and Permits to Carry Firearm Outside Residence (PTCFOR) for both firearms as his authority to possess them. He also claimed the .32 cal. revolver was covered by a license issued to its former owner.
• Lower Court Findings: Prosecution witnesses testified that Pastrano was not in the list of registered firearm holders and was not a member of the CAFGU. The trial court and the Court of Appeals both ruled that the Mission Orders and PTCFORs did not grant Pastrano authority to possess the firearms.

• Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction because he was duly authorized to carry the firearms per PTCFOR No. 40448 and Mission Order No. 01-06-89.
• Petitioner contended that the search warrant was invalid for failing constitutional requirements, as Capt. Mañoza lacked personal knowledge of the facts, and there was no written deposition showing the judge examined the complainant and witnesses under oath via searching questions as required by Rule 126, §4.

• Respondent maintained that a PTCFOR and a Mission Order cannot substitute for a license to possess a firearm, which is required under P.D. No. 1866 and its Implementing Rules.
• Respondent argued that the search warrant was validly issued based on the judge's examination of the two brothers, and that any defect regarding the written deposition was waived by petitioner's failure to object during trial.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the search warrant was invalid for lack of personal knowledge by the applicant and the absence of a written deposition of searching questions.
  • Whether the failure to object to the admissibility of evidence obtained via search warrant during trial constitutes a waiver of the right against unreasonable search and seizure.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence (PTCFOR) and a Mission Order constitute sufficient authority to possess firearms under P.D. No. 1866.
  • Whether a license to possess a firearm issued to a former owner transfers to the purchaser of the firearm.

• Procedural: The Court held that the search warrant was validly issued because the judge determined probable cause by examining the two brothers, whose personal knowledge formed the basis of the warrant, not the applicant's. Regarding the lack of written depositions, the Court ruled that petitioner waived this objection by failing to move to quash the information or object to the evidence during trial. Citing Demaisip v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that objections to the legality of a search warrant and the admissibility of evidence obtained thereby are deemed waived if not raised during trial.
• Substantive: The Court held that a PTCFOR and a Mission Order do not replace the requirement of a license to possess. A PTCFR merely authorizes carrying a firearm outside the residence and presupposes a valid license. A Mission Order similarly presupposes that the bearer already possesses a valid license or authority. Furthermore, the Court held that a license to possess a firearm is personal and non-transferable; thus, a license issued to a former owner does not legalize the purchaser's possession.

• Waiver of Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure — Objections to the legality of a search warrant and the admissibility of evidence obtained through it are deemed waived when the accused fails to object to the warrant's legality during trial or move to quash the information on that ground. The right may be waived expressly or impliedly.
• Nature of PTCFOR and Mission Order — A Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence does not dispense with the requirement of a license to possess; it merely allows a licensed firearm holder to carry the weapon outside their residence. A Mission Order similarly presupposes that the bearer already possesses a valid license or authority to possess the firearm.
• Non-transferability of Firearm License — A permit, license, or authority to possess a firearm is issued considering the personal qualifications of the applicant and is not transferable to a purchaser of the firearm, unlike the registration of motor vehicles.

• "A Permit to Carry Firearm Outside of Residence does not render the license unnecessary because its purpose is only to authorize its holder to carry the firearm outside his residence. A Permit to Carry a Firearm Outside the Residence presupposes that the party to whom it is issued is duly licensed to possess the firearm in question."
• "At any rate, objections to the legality of the search warrant and to the admissibility of the evidence obtained thereby were deemed waived when no objection to the legality of the search warrant was raised during the trial of the case nor to the admissibility of the evidence obtained through said warrant."
• "The permit/license or authority to possess firearm contemplated by P.D. No. 1866 and its Implementing Rules is one which is issued to the applicant taking into account his qualifications. ... A permit/license or authority to possess firearms is not transferable to the purchaser of the firearm."

• Demaisip v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 373 (1991) — Followed. Held that objections to the legality of a search warrant and admissibility of evidence are waived if not raised during trial.
• People v. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462 (1992) — Followed. Held that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures can be waived expressly or impliedly.
• People v. Ampil, 244 SCRA 135 (1995) — Cited regarding procedural default in failing to move to quash.
• Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95523, August 18, 1997 — Cited as basis for the retroactive application of R.A. No. 8294.

• P.D. No. 1866, §1 — Penalizes any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any firearm or ammunition. Applied as the substantive law under which petitioner was charged and convicted.
• P.D. No. 1866, Implementing Rules, §2 — Requires any person desiring to possess a firearm to first secure a permit/license/authority from the Chief of Constabulary. Applied to show the necessity of a personal license.
• P.D. No. 1866, Implementing Rules, §3 — Governs the authority of private individuals to carry firearms outside of residence, stating that only lawful holders of firearms may be authorized to carry them outside their residence. Applied to demonstrate that a PTCFOR presupposes a valid license.
• P.D. No. 1866, Implementing Rules, §1(d) — Defines a Mission Order as a directive issued to persons under supervision for a definite purpose, entitling the bearer to carry a duly issued or licensed firearm. Applied to show that a Mission Order requires an underlying license.
• 1987 Constitution, Art. III, §2 — Guarantees the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Cited by petitioner, but the Court ruled the right was waived.
• Rule 126, §4, Rules on Criminal Procedure — Requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and witnesses under oath and in writing. Cited by petitioner, but the Court ruled the objection was waived.
• R.A. No. 8294 — Reduced the penalty for illegal possession of firearms. Applied retroactively as it is favorable to the accused.

Regalado, Puno, and Torres, Jr., JJ.