People of the Philippines vs. Felimon Ramos, Antonio Contreras, et al.

The prosecution must allege and prove the lack of a license or permit as an essential element of the offense of illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866; failure to prove this negative fact warrants acquittal. A warrantless search and seizure may be valid when the accused voluntarily submits to the search or consents to it, thereby waiving the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The accused were charged in four separate informations filed with the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City, which was designated as a Special Criminal Court. The charges arose from two separate robbery incidents and the subsequent recovery of a firearm from one of the accused. The cases were consolidated for joint trial.

At around 8:30 o'clock in the evening of May 3, 1989, at 266 Cabatuan St., Deparo, Kalookan City, gun-wielding men barged into the residence of Leoncio Flores while the occupants were about to take their supper. The intruders threatened and hogtied the occupants, ransacked the house, and carried away several appliances and personal effects; they loaded the items on a Ford Fiera truck belonging to Leoncio Flores which they had taken from the garage. Leoncio Flores, who was not at home at the time, came to know of the incident when told an hour later by his nephew Elmo Flores. The truck, already cannibalized, was recovered the next day in a vacant lot in Barrio Capri, Novaliches, Quezon City.

Eight days later, on May 11, 1989, another robbery took place at the residence of Reynaldo Punzalan in Jordan Heights Subdivision, Kalookan City. Reynaldo and his wife Marissa drove home early that evening from their store in Novaliches. When they reached their gate at around 8:00 o'clock, Reynaldo blew the car horn to signal any of their three household helpers to open the gate. When the car entered the driveway, two armed men suddenly emerged from the house and grabbed Marissa; one leveled a gun at her while the other grappled for the possession of her bag. Reynaldo, who was about to get off from the car, was also attacked. He was able to run outside and shout for help from male neighbors who immediately gave succor. In the commotion that ensued, shots were fired as Marissa's attackers ran off with her bag; three other armed companions rushed towards the street and escaped. Later, the Punzalans discovered that their household helpers had been hogtied and were lying face down under the beds, that their two minor children were hiding in the comfort room, and that several personal belongings, including antique jewelry, cash, clothing and a car stereo, were missing.

On May 17, 1989, following a tip from an informer, police operatives from the Urduja Police Sub-Station III in Kalookan City reconnoitered Miranda subdivision for a possible engagement with the suspects. Accompanied by Reynaldo Punzalan, the lawmen chanced upon Felimon Ramos, who was then pointed to by Reynaldo as one of the five armed men whom he encountered during the robbery. When accosted and frisked by the lawmen, Ramos yielded in his waistline a .38 cal. snub nosed "paltik" revolver loaded with two live bullets. At the police headquarters where he was brought for interrogation, Ramos admitted involvement in the aforementioned incidents and identified all his cohorts, one of whom was Antonio Contreras. On May 18, 1989, police operatives picked up Contreras at Dona Rosario Subdivision in Novaliches, Quezon City.

The defense presented Danilo Santiago, a barangay captain of the locality where accused Ramos resides. He testified that he was with Sgt. Marino Lardizabal when the latter interviewed Reynaldo Punzalan about the robbery that occurred in the latter's house. According to him, Reynaldo declared that he failed to recognize the suspects because their faces were covered. He further testified that in his presence, accused Ramos denied the accusations and charges against him when confronted by the police officers on May 17, 1989, and that Ramos himself told him that he was not the robber. The direct testimony of accused Ramos was ordered "deleted from the records" for his failure to appear for cross-examination.

The trial court gave full credence to the version of the prosecution witnesses, finding that the prosecution was able to positively identify that the two accused were among the perpetrators of the crimes charged. The trial court also found that the defense failed to show any ulterior or false motive on the part of prosecution witnesses to testify against the accused.

• Credibility of Witnesses (Criminal Case No. 32861): Ramos impugned the credibility of prosecution witness P/Sgt. Lardizabal because of material inconsistencies in his testimony, and argued that Pat. Rodillas, who actually frisked him, should have been presented as a material witness.
• Illegality of Search and Seizure: Ramos maintained that when he was accosted by the police and found carrying a gun, the lawmen were not armed with either a search warrant or warrant of arrest; hence, the frisking and subsequent seizure of the gun were not justified and the gun is not admissible in evidence against him.
• Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Ramos alleged that the prosecution miserably failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically claiming that in the prosecution for illegal possession of firearms, the lack of license or authority to possess it is an essential ingredient of the offense which must be proved by the prosecution.
• Positive Identification (Criminal Cases Nos. 32860, 32862, 32863): The accused maintained that they were not positively identified as among the culprits because there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on whether or not the perpetrators were wearing handkerchiefs over their faces, and it was highly improbable that Punzalan, who was chased by armed men, could positively identify his pursuers while running away from them.
• Identification by Elmo and Noel Flores: The accused insisted that Elmo Flores and Noel Flores were not able to positively identify the culprits and that the policemen merely included them to point to the accused as the perpetrators when they were presented at the police precinct.

• Voluntary Submission to Search: The prosecution's evidence disclosed that accused Ramos voluntarily allowed himself to be frisked and that he gave the gun to Pat. Alfredo Rodillas; this evidence remained unrebutted because Ramos's testimony was stricken from the records.
• Paltik as Unlicensed Firearm: The Solicitor General contended that since a paltik is a homemade gun, it is illegally manufactured and cannot be issued a license or permit, making it unnecessary to prove that it is unlicensed.
• Erroneous Penalty for Robbery in Band: The Office of the Solicitor General agreed that the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court on accused Ramos for robbery in band was erroneous.

• Validity of the Warrantless Search: Whether the frisking of accused Ramos and the seizure of the gun from his waistline were valid despite the absence of a search warrant or warrant of arrest.
• Admissibility of the Firearm: Whether the gun recovered from Ramos is admissible in evidence against him.
• Proof of Lack of License: Whether the prosecution must prove the lack of license or permit to possess a firearm as an essential element of the offense of illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866.
• Positive Identification: Whether the accused were positively identified as perpetrators of the robbery in band, carnapping, and simple robbery.
• Propriety of the Appeal of Contreras: Whether accused Antonio Contreras, who escaped from detention through fake bail bonds and remained at large, may maintain his appeal.

• Validity of the Warrantless Search: Yes. The warrantless search was valid because accused Ramos voluntarily allowed himself to be frisked and gave the gun to Pat. Alfredo Rodillas, thereby waiving his right against unreasonable search and seizure.
• Admissibility of the Firearm: Yes. The gun is admissible in evidence because the search was conducted with the voluntary consent of the accused, which is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
• Proof of Lack of License: No. The prosecution failed to prove that Ramos had no license or permit to possess the firearm; lack of license is an essential ingredient of the offense which the prosecution must allege and prove, and failure to do so warrants acquittal.
• Positive Identification: Yes. The trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses and the positive identification of the accused were affirmed, as the alleged discrepancies referred to minor or inconsequential particulars.
• Propriety of the Appeal of Contreras: No. The appeal of Contreras was dismissed because he escaped from detention through fake bail bonds and remained at large, thereby waiving or forfeiting his right to appeal.

• Validity of the Warrantless Search: The rule that a search may be conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of a search warrant validly issued by a judge is not without exceptions. A warrantless search may be validly made as an incident to a lawful arrest or in stop and search situations. Another recognized exception is when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable search and seizure. As stated in People vs. Malasugui, when one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof. The evidence for the prosecution clearly disclosed that accused Ramos voluntarily allowed himself to be frisked and that he gave the gun to Pat. Alfredo Rodillas. This evidence remained unrebutted by Ramos because his testimony on cross-examination was stricken off from the records. Moreover, his counsel did not object to any of the questions asked during the direct examination of witness Lardizabal concerning the frisking of Ramos and the recovery from him of the gun.

• Admissibility of the Firearm: The prosecution's failure to present Pat. Rodillas as a witness despite the fact that he was the one who frisked Ramos was not fatal to the prosecution's cause. Lardizabal was himself an eyewitness to the frisking and seizure of the gun. Hence, the testimony of Rodillas may be dispensed with for being merely corroborative.

• Proof of Lack of License: Under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, the lack or absence of a license is an essential ingredient of the offense which the prosecution must allege and prove. In People vs. Tiozon, the Court held that even if one has a license, he cannot carry the firearm outside his residence without legal authority therefor; it follows that the lack or absence of a license is an essential ingredient of the offense which the prosecution must allege and prove. In People vs. Pajenado, the Court held that under Section 2, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the burden of proof as to the offense charged lies on the prosecution, and a negative fact alleged by the prosecution must be proven if it is an essential ingredient of the offense charged. The Court did not agree with the Solicitor General's contention that since a paltik is a homemade gun, it is illegally manufactured and cannot be issued a license or permit, making it no longer necessary to prove that it is unlicensed. Fajardo did not say that paltiks can in no case be issued a license or a permit, and that proof that a firearm is a paltik dispenses with proof that it is unlicensed.

• Positive Identification: The issue of identification is a factual one and involves the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court's findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case. The testimonies of Reynaldo Punzalan and Elmo Flores, who identified the accused as among the perpetrators of the crimes, were credible and consistent with common human experience. The discrepancies alleged by the defense referred to minor or even inconsequential particulars which do not invalidate the positive identification of the accused. It was not true that Punzalan could not have properly identified his attackers while he was chased by them; he had already recognized them when they were menacingly approaching him as he was about to alight from his car. As to the identification of accused Ramos by Elmo Flores and Noel Flores, the former conveniently forgets that the handkerchief which covered his face dropped and his identity was thus unmasked.

• Propriety of the Appeal of Contreras: The bail bonds filed for the temporary liberty of Contreras and Ramos were ordered cancelled by the trial court because the Country Bankers Insurance Corporation did not issue the bail bonds, claiming that the alleged signatures therein of its Senior Vice-President and of the notary public were not their genuine signatures. The trial court explicitly declared that the questioned bail bonds "are fake and, therefore, void ab initio." The accused submitted fake bail bonds to gain freedom from detention. Thus, the accused did not merely "jump" bail; for all legal intents and purposes, they escaped from detention. Pursuant to the ruling in People vs. Mapalao, Contreras, who has remained at large, must be deemed to have waived or forfeited his right to appeal from the joint decision of the trial court.

• Voluntary Waiver of the Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure — When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof. The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived, and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly. In this case, the evidence disclosed that accused Ramos voluntarily allowed himself to be frisked and gave the gun to Pat. Rodillas, and this evidence remained unrebutted.

• Burden of Proof for Negative Facts in Illegal Possession of Firearms — Under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, the lack or absence of a license is an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of firearms which the prosecution must allege and prove. Under Section 2, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, in criminal cases the burden of proof as to the offense charged lies on the prosecution, and a negative fact alleged by the prosecution must be proven if it is an essential ingredient of the offense charged. The prosecution need only establish a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable, which shall suffice to cast the onus upon the accused.

• Forfeiture of the Right to Appeal by Escape — An accused who escapes from detention through the use of fake bail bonds and remains at large is deemed to have waived or forfeited his right to appeal from the judgment of conviction. The accused did not merely "jump" bail; for all legal intents and purposes, they escaped from detention.

• Credibility of Witnesses and Positive Identification — The credibility of witnesses is to be resolved primarily by the trial court which had the opportunity to observe their demeanor and manner of testifying during the trial. The trial court's findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case. Minor inconsistencies in testimonies tend to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of prosecution witnesses because they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.

• "When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 8th Ed., vol. I, page 631.) The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly." — This passage from People vs. Malasugui, quoted by the Court, establishes the doctrine of voluntary waiver as an exception to the warrant requirement and was the basis for upholding the admissibility of the gun seized from Ramos.

• "Undoubtly, there is lawful possession under the foregoing section if one does not have the license to possess the firearm. Even if he has the license, he cannot carry the firearm outside his residence without legal authority therefor. It follows then that the lack or absence of a licence is an essential ingredient of the offense which the prosecution must allege and prove. Every element of the crime must be alleged and proved." — This passage from People vs. Tiozon, quoted by the Court, articulates the rule that lack of license is an essential element of illegal possession of firearms that the prosecution must prove, and was the basis for acquitting Ramos of this charge.

• "It is true that People vs. Lubo, 101 Phil. 179 and People vs. Ramos, 8 SCRA 758 could be invoked to support the view that it is incumbent upon a person charged with illegal possession of a firearm to prove the issuance to him of a license to possess the firearm, but We are of the considered opinion that under the provisions of Section 2, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court which provide that in criminal cases the burden of proof as to the offense charged lies on the prosecution and that a negative fact alleged by the prosecution must be proven if 'it is an essential ingredient of the offense charged,' the burden of proof was with the prosecution in this case to prove that the firearm used by appellant in committing the offense charged was not properly licensed." — This passage from People vs. Pajenado, quoted by the Court, establishes the burden of proof on the prosecution for the negative fact of lack of license in illegal possession of firearms cases.

• People vs. Malasugui, 63 Phil. 221 (1936) — Controlling precedent for the doctrine that voluntary submission to a search constitutes a waiver of the right against unreasonable search and seizure; cited by the Court to uphold the validity of the warrantless search of Ramos.
• People vs. Tiozon, 198 SCRA 368 (1991) — Followed; held that under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, the lack or absence of a license is an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of firearms which the prosecution must allege and prove.
• People vs. Pajenado, 31 SCRA 812 (1970) — Followed; held that under Section 2, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove a negative fact alleged if it is an essential ingredient of the offense charged.
• People vs. Fajardo, 17 SCRA 494 (1966) — Distinguished; the Court declined to extend its ruling to hold that proof that a firearm is a paltik dispenses with proof that it is unlicensed.
• People vs. Mapalao, 197 SCRA 79 (1991) — Followed; held that an accused who escapes from detention waives or forfeits his right to appeal.
• People vs. Martinado, G.R. No. 92020, October 19, 1992 — Distinguished; the Court declined to give retroactive application to the Mapalao ruling because the facts and circumstances in Martinado were entirely dissimilar to those in the present cases.

• Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Provides the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause. The Court applied this provision in analyzing the validity of the warrantless search of Ramos, ultimately finding that he voluntarily waived this right.
• Section 1, P.D. No. 1866 — Codifies the laws on illegal/unlawful possession of firearms. The Court applied this provision in determining that the lack or absence of a license is an essential ingredient of the offense which the prosecution must allege and prove.
• Section 2, Rule 131, Rules of Court — Provides that in criminal cases the burden of proof as to the offense charged lies on the prosecution. The Court applied this provision in holding that the prosecution must prove the negative fact of lack of license in illegal possession of firearms cases.
• Article 294, subdivision 5, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes simple robbery. The Court applied this provision in determining the proper penalty for the robbery committed by Ramos, which was not attended by the circumstances in subdivisions 1 to 4.
• Article 295, Revised Penal Code — Provides for the penalty next higher in degree when the crime was committed by a band. The Court applied this provision in determining the proper penalty for robbery in band committed by Ramos and Contreras, who appeared to be the leaders of the band.
• R.A. No. 6539 — Otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Act. The Court applied this provision in affirming the conviction of the accused for carnapping of the Ford Fiera truck belonging to Leoncio Flores.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — The Court applied this law in imposing the indeterminate penalty for robbery in band, appreciating the generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime which was duly established without objection.

Feliciano, Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concurred.