Untalan v. People

Although illegal possession of firearm is a malum prohibitum requiring no criminal intent, the prosecution must still prove animus possidendi — the intent to possess — to sustain a conviction; mere physical or constructive possession without such intent does not constitute the offense.

Petitioner Noel Untalan y Sarreal was a resident of Capt. Ignacio Bella Street, Barangay Poblacion 4-C, Imus, Cavite. His brother Rolando and one Melvin Lagera had disappeared and were believed to have been killed. As a precautionary measure, the PNP designated PO2 Jude Camitan and PO3 Rheonel Causaren as Untalan's security detail pending investigation of the disappearances. In connection with this assignment, PO3 Causaren was issued an M-16 rifle, two magazines, and 60 rounds of ammunition by the PNP–Regional Intelligence Division under a Memorandum Receipt dated June 10, 2009. The two police officers often slept at Untalan's house per instructions of their superiors.

On July 15, 2009, Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang of Branch 22, Regional Trial Court, Imus, Cavite, issued Search Warrant No. 1290-09 against petitioner Noel Untalan y Sarreal after examining under oath Police Inspector Fortunato M. Lachica, PO2 Gil DF Anrico, and Jaime G. Mateo. The warrant authorized a search of Untalan's residence for unlicensed firearms and ammunition. On July 22, 2009, at 5:30 a.m., the PNP-CIDG team led by PINSP Lachica served the warrant on Untalan at his residence in Barangay Poblacion 4-C, Imus, Cavite, with Barangay Kagawad Bernardo Saquilayan serving as witness. The search yielded one M-16 rifle (Baby) Elisco with Serial No. RP 133831, ten pieces of live ammunition for caliber 5.56, and one short magazine for caliber 5.56. Untalan voluntarily handed the items to the police officers. SPO1 Enriquez required Untalan to present a license, but he could not produce any. An inventory and receipt of confiscated items were prepared and signed by SPO1 Enriquez, Kagawad Saquilayan, and Untalan.

The defense presented a different account. Following the disappearance of Untalan's brother Rolando and one Melvin Lagera, Police Senior Inspector Randy C. Moratalla issued a Detail Security Assignment dated June 10, 2009 designating PO2 Jude Camitan and PO3 Rheonel Causaren as Untalan's security detail. In connection with PO3 Causaren's designation, the PNP–Regional Intelligence Division issued him an M-16 rifle with Serial Number RP 133831 BB, two magazines for caliber 5.56, and 60 rounds of ammunition for caliber 5.56 under a Memorandum Receipt dated June 10, 2009. PO3 Causaren and PO2 Camitan accompanied Untalan in his house and wherever he went, and often slept in his residence per instructions of Police Chief Superintendent Leo M. Francisco.

On July 22, 2009, while PO3 Causaren and PO2 Camitan were at Camp Pantaleon Garcia in Imus, Cavite, they received a phone call from Untalan informing them that members of the Cavite Investigation and Detection Team were at his house to implement a search warrant. The two officers immediately returned to Untalan's house. Before the PNP-CIDG could implement the search, PO3 Causaren instructed Untalan to bring out the M-16 rifle that he had left in the house, and informed the PNP-CIDG that the rifle belonged to him and was covered by a Memorandum Receipt. The prosecution never refuted the existence and validity of the Detail Security Assignment and the Memorandum Receipt issued to PO3 Causaren and PO2 Camitan. The items confiscated from Untalan's house were the exact items issued to PO3 Causaren under the Memorandum Receipt. Untalan did not even know that PO3 Causaren had left the items in his house.

The trial court found Untalan guilty, holding that when PO3 Causaren left the firearm in Untalan's house, actual control and possession transferred to the latter, giving him constructive possession of the firearm, ammunition, and magazine. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification as to the penalty, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and ruled that illegal possession of firearms being malum prohibitum, Untalan's lack of a license was sufficient to convict. The appellate court also held that Untalan could no longer assail the validity of the search warrant, having stipulated on its genuineness during pre-trial.

• Lack of Animus Possidendi: Petitioner maintained that he had no intent to possess the firearm, magazine, and ammunition, as these items were left in his house by PO3 Causaren, his assigned police security detail, and he did not even know they were there.
• Ownership by the PNP: Petitioner argued that the confiscated items belonged to the PNP through PO3 Causaren, as evidenced by the Detail Security Assignment and Memorandum Receipt, the existence and validity of which the prosecution never refuted.

• Elements Established: Respondent countered that the prosecution established all elements of illegal possession of firearm: the existence of the subject firearm, magazine, and ammunition was undisputed, and Untalan did not have a license to possess any of these items.
• Constructive Possession: Respondent argued that Untalan had constructive possession of the items, as they were found in his residence and he voluntarily handed them over to the police officers.

• Animus Possidendi: Whether the prosecution proved that petitioner had animus possidendi — the intent to possess the firearm, magazine, and ammunition — sufficient to sustain a conviction for illegal possession of firearm despite the offense being malum prohibitum.

• Animus Possidendi: No. Although both elements of illegal possession of firearm were present, the prosecution failed to establish that petitioner had intent to possess the subject items, which belonged to the PNP through PO3 Causaren and were left in petitioner's house without his knowledge.

• Animus Possidendi: While illegal possession of firearm is a malum prohibitum requiring no criminal intent or malice, the Court has consistently held that there must be possession coupled with intent to possess (animus possidendi) to support a conviction. The distinction between criminal intent and intent to possess is critical: mere possession without criminal intent suffices for conviction, but it must still be shown that the accused possessed the firearm either physically or constructively with animus possidendi. In this case, the firearm, magazine, and ammunition belonged to the PNP through PO3 Causaren, who was assigned as Untalan's security detail. These were the exact items covered by the Memorandum Receipt issued to PO3 Causaren. The prosecution never refuted the existence and validity of the Detail Security Assignment and the Memorandum Receipt. When PO3 Causaren left the items in Untalan's house, he was not deemed to have abandoned or delegated custody; the items remained with PO3 Causaren. Untalan never acquired possession or had any intent of acquiring possession — for him, the items simply formed part of the security afforded by the PNP. He did not even know the items had been left in his house. Animus possidendi is a state of mind, the presence of which is largely dependent on attendant events and surrounding circumstances, and may be inferred from prior or contemporaneous acts. The circumstances here clearly showed the items were never owned or possessed by Untalan. Accordingly, the prosecution's failure to establish animus possidendi warranted acquittal.

• Animus Possidendi in Illegal Possession of Firearms — Although illegal possession of firearm is a malum prohibitum punishable by special law and no criminal intent or malice need be proved, the prosecution must still establish that the accused possessed the firearm either physically or constructively with animus possidendi — the intent to possess. A distinction must be made between criminal intent and intent to possess. Without animus possidendi, no offense is committed even if there is physical or constructive possession. Animus possidendi is a state of mind whose presence or absence is determined from the attendant events and surrounding circumstances of each case, and may be inferred from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused. The Court applied this doctrine by examining the circumstances: the firearm belonged to the PNP through PO3 Causaren, was covered by a Memorandum Receipt, was left in Untalan's house without his knowledge, and formed part of the security detail assigned to him — all negating any intent to possess on Untalan's part.

• "Although there is physical or constructive possession on the part of the accused, there is no offense committed in the absence of animus possidendi." — This passage, quoted from Fajardo vs. People, encapsulates the controlling principle that animus possidendi is indispensable even in malum prohibitum offenses involving illegal possession of firearms.
• "In the present case, a distinction should he made between criminal intent and intent to possess. While mere possession without criminal intent is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm, it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the part of the accused." — This passage from People vs. De Gracia, as quoted in the decision, articulates the canonical distinction between criminal intent (irrelevant in malum prohibitum) and intent to possess (indispensable for conviction), and is frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on illegal possession of firearms.
• "The circumstances in this case clearly paint one picture: the firearm, magazine, and pieces of ammunition were never owned or possessed by Untalan; they were the PNP's through PO3 Causaren." — This statement crystallizes the Court's factual conclusion that the items belonged to the PNP and were never possessed by Untalan, directly supporting the acquittal.

• Del Rosario y Nicolas vs. People, 410 Phil. 642 (2001) — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the principle that although illegal possession of firearm is a malum prohibitum, possession must be coupled with animus possidendi to support a conviction. In Del Rosario, the accused was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove that the firearm was in his effective possession or control without a license.
• People vs. De Gracia, 304 Phil. 118 (1994) — Followed. The Court cited this case for the canonical distinction between criminal intent and intent to possess, clarifying that the kind of possession punishable under PD No. 1866 is one where the accused possessed a firearm either physically or constructively with animus possidendi.
• De Guzman vs. People, 857 Phil. 800 (2019) — Followed. Cited for the principle that animus possidendi is a state of mind whose presence is largely dependent on attendant events and surrounding circumstances, and may be inferred from prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused.
• Fajardo vs. People, 654 Phil. 184 (2011) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that no offense is committed in the absence of animus possidendi even where there is physical or constructive possession.

• Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294 — This provision penalizes the unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition, or possession of firearms or ammunition. The Court identified two essential elements of the offense: (1) the existence of the firearm and/or ammunition, and (2) the accused's lack of a corresponding license. Both elements were present, but the conviction was nonetheless reversed for failure to prove animus possidendi.

Leonon, SAJ. (Chairperson), J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred. M. Lopez, J., was on official business.