7/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
1/60
ACT NO. 3326
ACT NO. 3326 - AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR
VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES
AND TO PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless
otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with
the following rules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only
by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or
both; (b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment
for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) after
eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or
more, but less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for
any other offense punished by imprisonment for six years or
more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe aftertwenty years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall
prescribe after two months.
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not
known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the
institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation and
punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are
instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run
again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
constituting jeopardy.
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, special acts shall be acts
defining and penalizing violations of the law not included in
the Penal Code.
Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect on its approval.
7/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
2/60
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8294
AN ACT AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866, AS
AMENDED, ENTITLED "CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION,MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION OF FIREARMS,
AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OFFIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR
CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES."
Section 1. Sec. 1 Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby
further amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition orpossession of firearms or ammunition or instruments used orintended to be used in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a
fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000) shall be
imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, dealin, acquire, dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as
rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar
firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or
instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any
firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no other crime wascommitted.
"The penalty ofprision mayorin its minimum period and a fine ofThirty thousand pesos (P30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm
is classified as high powered firearm which includes those with
bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such
as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms
but considered powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22
center-fire magnum and other firearms with firing capability of
full automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided, however,That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.
"If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as
an aggravating circumstance.
"If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of or incident
to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection,
sedition, or attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be
absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion, orinsurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat.
"The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president,
manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or
private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully
or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such firm,
company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or
persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding
7/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
3/60
paragraphs or willfully or knowingly allow any of them to use
unlicensed firearms or firearms without any legal authority to be
carried outside of their residence in the course of their
employment.
"The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person
who shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residencewithout legal authority therefor."
Sec. 2. Sec. 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby
further amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 3. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition orpossession of explosives. The penalty ofprision mayorin itsmaximum period to reclusion temporal and a fine of not less than
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire,
dispose or possess hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other
explosives, including but not limited to 'pillbox,' 'molotov
cocktail bombs,' 'fire bombs,' or other incendiary devices
capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous objects orcausing injury or death to any person.
"When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised
Penal Code or special laws with the use of the aforementioned
explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices, which
results in the death of any person or persons, the use of such
explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
"If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of, or incident
to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion, insurrection,
sedition or attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall beabsorbed as an element of the crimes of rebellion, insurrection,
sedition or attempted coup d'etat.
"The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president,
manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or
private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully
or knowingly allow any of the explosives owned by such firm,
company, corporation or entity, to be used by any person or
persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding
paragraphs."
Sec. 3. Sec. 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby
further amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 5. Tampering of firearm's serial number.
The penalty ofprision correccional shall be imposed upon any person who shallunlawfully tamper, change, deface or erase the serial number of
any firearm."
Sec. 4. Sec. 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby
further amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 6. Repacking or altering the composition of lawfullymanufactured explosives. The penalty of prision correccionalshall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully repack,
7/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
4/60
alter or modify the composition of any lawfully manufactured
explosives."
Sec. 5. Coverage of the Term Unlicensed Firearm. The term unlicensedfirearm shall include:
1) firearms with expired license; or
2) unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the commission of thecrime.
Sec. 6. Rules and regulations. The Department of Justice and theDepartment of the Interior and Local Government shall jointly issue,
within ninety (90) days after the approval of this Act, the necessary
rules and regulations pertaining to the administrative aspect of the
provisions hereof, furnishing the Committee on Public Order and
Security and the Committee on Justice and Human Rights of both Houses
of Congress copies of such rules and regulations within thirty (30)
days from the promulgation hereof.
Sec. 7. Separability clause. If, for any reason, any Sec. or
provision of this Act is declared to be unconstitutional or invalid,the other Sec.s or provisions thereof which are not affected thereby
shall continue to be in full force and effect.
Sec. 8. Repealing clause. All laws, decrees, orders, rules andregulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly.
Sec. 9. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15)days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.
Approved: June 6, 1997
7/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
5/60
G.R. No. 167571 November 25, 2008
LUIS PANAGUITON, JR., petitioner
vs.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RAMON C. TONGSON and RODRIGO G. CAWILI,respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA,J.:
This is a Petition for Review1of the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 29 October 2004
and 21 March 2005 in CA G.R. SP No. 87119, which dismissed Luis Panaguiton, Jr.'s
(petitioner's) petition for certiorari and his subsequent motion for reconsideration.2
The facts, as culled from the records, follow.
In 1992,Rodrigo Cawili (Cawili) borrowed various sums of money amounting to P1,979,459.00from petitioner. On 8 January 1993, Cawili and his business associate, Ramon C. Tongson
(Tongson), jointly issued in favor of petitioner three (3) checks in payment of the said loans.
Significantly, all three (3) checks bore the signatures of both Cawili and Tongson. Uponpresentment for payment on 18 March 1993, the checks were dishonored, either for insufficiency
of funds or by the closure of the account. Petitioner made formal demands to pay the amounts of
the checks upon Cawili on 23 May 1995 and upon Tongson on 26 June 1995, but to no avail.3
On 24 August 1995, petitioner filed a complaint against Cawili and Tongson
4
for violating BatasPambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22)5before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office. During the
preliminary investigation, only Tongson appeared and filed his counter-affidavit.6Tongson
claimed that he had been unjustly included as party-respondent in the case since petitioner had
lent money to Cawili in the latter's personal capacity. Moreover, like petitioner, he had lent
various sums to Cawili and in appreciation of his services, he was
offered to be an officer of Roma Oil Corporation. He averred that he was not Cawili's business
associate; in fact, he himself had filed several criminal cases against Cawili for violation of B.P.Blg. 22. Tongson denied that he had issued the bounced checks and pointed out that his
signatures on the said checks had been falsified.
To counter these allegations, petitioner presented several documents showing Tongson's
signatures, which were purportedly the same as the those appearing on the checks.7He also
showed a copy of an affidavit of adverse claim wherein Tongson himself had claimed to beCawili's business associate.8
In a resolution dated 6 December 1995,9City Prosecutor III Eliodoro V. Lara found probable
cause only against Cawili and dismissed the charges against Tongson. Petitioner filed a partial
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt17/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
6/60
appeal before the Department of Justice (DOJ) even while the case against Cawili was filed
before the proper court. In a letter-resolution dated 11 July 1997,10
after finding that it waspossible for Tongson to co-sign the bounced checks and that he had deliberately altered his
signature in the pleadings submitted during the preliminary investigation, Chief State Prosecutor
Jovencito R. Zuo directed the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to conduct a reinvestigation of
the case against Tongson and to refer the questioned signatures to the National Bureau ofInvestigation (NBI).
Tongson moved for the reconsideration of the resolution, but his motion was denied for lack of
merit.
On 15 March 1999, Assistant City Prosecutor Ma. Lelibet S. Sampaga (ACP Sampaga)
dismissed the complaintagainst Tongson without referring the matter to the NBI per the Chief
State Prosecutor's resolution. In her resolution,11
ACP Sampaga held that the case had already
prescribed pursuant to Act No. 3326, as amended,12
which provides that violations penalized byB.P. Blg. 22 shall prescribe after four (4) years. In this case, the four (4)-year period started on
the date the checks were dishonored, or on 20 January 1993 and 18 March 1993. The filing of thecomplaint before the Quezon City Prosecutor on 24 August 1995 did not interrupt the running ofthe prescriptive period, as the law contemplates judicial, and not administrative proceedings.
Thus, considering that from 1993 to 1998, more than four (4) years had already elapsed and no
information had as yet been filed against Tongson, the alleged violation of B.P. Blg. 22 imputedto him had already prescribed.13Moreover, ACP Sampaga stated that the order of the Chief State
Prosecutor to refer the matter to the NBI could no longer be sanctioned under Section 3, Rule
112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure because the initiative should come from petitioner
himself and not the investigating prosecutor.14
Finally, ACP Sampaga found that Tongson had nodealings with petitioner.15
Petitioner appealed to the DOJ. But the DOJ, through Undersecretary Manuel A.J. Teehankee,dismissed the same, stating that the offense had already prescribed pursuant to Act No. 3326 .16
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the DOJ resolution. On 3 April 2003 ,17
the DOJ,
this time through then Undersecretary Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, ruled in his favor anddeclared that the offense had not prescribed and that the filing of the complaint with the
prosecutor's office interrupted the running of the prescriptive period citing Ingco v.
Sandiganbayan.18
Thus, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City was directed to filethree (3) separate informations against Tongson for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.19On 8 July 2003,
the City Prosecutor's Office filed an information20charging petitioner with three (3) counts of
violation of B.P. Blg. 22.21
However, in a resolution dated 9 August 2004,22the DOJ, presumably acting on a motion for
reconsideration filed by Tongson, ruled that the subject offense had already prescribed and
ordered "the withdrawal of the three (3) informations for violation of B.P. Blg. 22" againstTongson. In justifying its sudden turnabout, the DOJ explained that Act No. 3326 applies to
violations of special acts that do not provide for a prescriptive period for the offenses thereunder.
Since B.P. Blg. 22, as a special act, does not provide for the prescription of the offense it defines
and punishes, Act No. 3326 applies to it, and not Art. 90 of the Revised Penal Code whichgoverns the prescription of offenses penalized thereunder.23The DOJ also cited the case of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt107/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
7/60
Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr.,24
wherein the Supreme Court ruled that the proceedings referred to in Act
No. 3326, as amended, are judicial proceedings, and not the one before the prosecutor's office.
Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari25
before the Court of Appeals assailing the 9 August
2004 resolution of the DOJ. The petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals in view of
petitioner's failure to attach a proper verification and certification of non-forum
shopping. The Court of Appeals also noted that the 3 April 2003 resolution of the DOJ attachedto the petition is a mere photocopy.26Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the appellate
court's resolution, attaching to said motion an amended Verification/Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping.27
Still, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion, stating that subsequentcompliance with the formal requirements would notper se warrant a reconsideration of its
resolution. Besides, the Court of Appeals added, the petition is patently without merit and the
questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.28
In the instant petition, petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals committed grave error in
dismissing his petition on technical grounds and in ruling that the petition before it was patentlywithout merit and the questions are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
The DOJ, in its comment,29
states that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petitionfor non-compliance with the Rules of Court. It also reiterates that the filing of a complaint with
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City does not interrupt the running of theprescriptive period for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. It argues that under B.P. Blg. 22, a special law
which does not provide for its own prescriptive period, offenses prescribe in four (4) years inaccordance with Act No. 3326.
Cawili and Tongson submitted their comment, arguing that the Court of Appeals did not err in
dismissing the petition for certiorari. They claim that the offense of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 hasalready prescribed per Act No. 3326. In addition, they claim that the long delay, attributable to
petitioner and the State, violated their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.30
The petition is meritorious.
First on the technical issues.
Petitioner submits that the verification attached to his petition before the Court of Appeals
substantially complies with the rules, the verification being intended simply to secure an
assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not a product of the
imagination or a matter of speculation. He points out that this Court has held in a number ofcases that a deficiency in the verification can be excused or dispensed with, the defect being
neither jurisdictional nor always fatal.31
Indeed, the verification is merely a formal requirement intended to secure an assurance that
matters which are alleged are true and correctthe court may simply order the correction ofunverified pleadings or act on them and waive strict compliance with the rules in order that the
ends of justice may be served,32as in the instant case. In the case at bar, we find that by attaching
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt247/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
8/60
the pertinent verification to his motion for reconsideration, petitioner sufficiently complied with
the verification requirement.
Petitioner also submits that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on the ground
that there was failure to attach a certified true copy or duplicate original of the 3 April 2003
resolution of the DOJ. We agree. A plain reading of the petition before the
Court of Appeals shows that it seeks the annulment of the DOJ resolution dated 9 August 2004,33
a certified true copy of which was attached as Annex "A."34Obviously, the Court of Appeals
committed a grievous mistake.
Now, on the substantive aspects.
Petitioner assails the DOJ's reliance onZaldivia v. Reyes,35a case involving the violation of a
municipal ordinance, in declaring that the prescriptive period is tolled only upon filing of the
information in court. According to petitioner, what is applicable in this case isIngco v.
Sandiganbayan,
36
wherein this Court ruled that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal's officefor preliminary investigation suspends the running of the prescriptive period. Petitioner also
notes that the Ingco case similarly involved the violation of a special law, Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, petitioner notes.37
Heargues that sustaining the DOJ's and the Court of Appeals' pronouncements would result in grave
injustice to him since the delays in the present case were clearly beyond his control .38
There is no question that Act No. 3326, appropriately entitled An Act to Establish Prescriptionfor Violations of Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription
Shall Begin, is the law applicable to offenses under special laws which do not provide their own
prescriptive periods. The pertinent provisions read:
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in suchacts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) x x x; (b) after four years for
those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) x x
x
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of
the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and theinstitution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty
person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons notconstituting jeopardy.
We agree that Act. No. 3326 applies to offenses under B.P. Blg. 22. An offense under
B.P. Blg. 22 merits the penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not
more than one year or by a fine, hence, under Act No. 3326, a violation of B.P. Blg. 22prescribes in four (4) years from the commission of the offense or, if the same be not
known at the time, from the discovery thereof. Nevertheless, we cannot uphold the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt337/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
9/60
position that only the filing of a case in court can toll the running of the prescriptive
period.
It must be pointed out that when Act No. 3326 was passed on 4 December 1926, preliminary
investigation of criminal offenses was conducted by justices of the peace, thus, the phraseology
in the law, "institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment,"
39
and theprevailing rule at the time was that once a complaint is filed with the justice of the peace for
preliminary investigation, the prescription of the offense is halted.40
The historical perspective on the application of Act No. 3326 is illuminating.41
Act No. 3226 was
approved on 4 December 1926 at a time when the function of conducting the preliminaryinvestigation of criminal offenses was vested in the justices of the peace. Thus, the prevailing
rule at the time, as shown in the cases ofU.S. v. Lazada42
and People v. Joson,43
is that the
prescription of the offense is tolled once a complaint is filed with the justice of the peace for
preliminary investigation inasmuch as the filing of the complaint signifies the
institution of the criminal proceedings against the accused.
44
These cases were followed by ourdeclaration in People v. Parao and Parao45that the first step taken in the investigation or
examination of offenses partakes the nature of a judicial proceeding which suspends the
prescription of the offense.46
Subsequently, in People v. Olarte,47
we held that the filing of the
complaint in the Municipal Court, even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary examinationor investigation, should, and does, interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal
responsibility, even if the court where the complaint or information is filed cannot try the case on
the merits. In addition, even if the court where the complaint or information is filed may onlyproceed to investigate the case, its actuations already represent the initial step of the proceedings
against the offender,48and hence, the prescriptive period should be interrupted.
InIngco v. Sandiganbayan
49
and Sanrio Company Limited v. Lim,
50
which involved violations ofthe Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) and the Intellectual Property Code
(R.A. No. 8293), which are both special laws, the Court ruled that the
prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation
against the accused. In the more recent case of Securities and Exchange Commission v. Interport
Resources Corporation, et al.,51the Court ruled that the nature and purpose of the investigation
conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission on violations of the Revised Securities
Act,52
another special law, is equivalent to the preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ incriminal cases, and thus effectively interrupts the prescriptive period.
The following disquisition in theInterport Resources case53
is instructive, thus:
While it may be observed that the term "judicial proceedings" in Sec. 2 of Act No. 3326
appears before "investigation and punishment" in the old law, with the subsequent change
in set-up whereby the investigation of the charge for purposes of prosecution has becomethe exclusive function of the executive branch, the term "proceedings" should now be
understood either executive or judicial in character: executive when it involves the
investigation phase and judicial when it refers to the trial and judgment stage. With this
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt397/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
10/60
clarification, any kind of investigative proceeding instituted against the guilty person
which may ultimately lead to his prosecution should be sufficient to toll prescription.54
Indeed, to rule otherwise would deprive the injured party the right to obtain vindication on
account of delays that are not under his control.55
A clear example would be this case, wherein
petitioner filed his complaint-affidavit on 24 August 1995, well within the four (4)-yearprescriptive period. He likewise timely filed his appeals and his motions for reconsideration on
the dismissal of the charges against
Tongson. He went through the proper channels, within the prescribed periods. However, from
the time petitioner filed his complaint-affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor (24 August1995) up to the time the DOJ issued the assailed resolution, an aggregate period of nine (9) years
had elapsed. Clearly, the delay was beyond petitioner's control. After all, he had already initiated
the active prosecution of the case as early as 24 August 1995, only to suffer setbacks because of
the DOJ's flip-flopping resolutions and its misapplication of Act No. 3326. Aggrieved parties,especially those who do not sleep on their rights and actively pursue their causes, should not be
allowed to suffer unnecessarily further simply because of circumstances beyond their control,like the accused's delaying tactics or the delay and inefficiency of the investigating agencies.
We rule and so hold that the offense has not yet prescribed. Petitioner 's filing of his complaint-
affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor on 24 August 1995 signified thecommencement of the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused and thus effectively
interrupted the prescriptive period for the offenses they had been charged under B.P. Blg. 22.
Moreover, since there is a definite finding of probable cause, with the debunking of the claim ofprescription there is no longer any impediment to the filing of the information against petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 29
October 2004 and 21 March 2005 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The resolution of theDepartment of Justice dated 9 August 2004 is also ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The
Department of Justice is ORDERED to REFILE the information against the petitioner.
No costs.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/nov2008/gr_167571_2008.html#fnt547/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
11/60
G.R. No. 159703 March 3, 2008
CEDRIC SAYCO y VILLANUEVA, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the May 23, 2003 Resolution1of the Court Appeals (CA) which affirmed the conviction
of Cedric Sayco y Villanueva2(petitioner) for violation of Section 1, Presidential Decree (P.D.)
No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8294; as well as the August 7, 2003 CA
Resolution3which denied his Motion for Reconsideration.
The facts are not disputed.
Petitioner was charged before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bais City with illegalpossession of firearms under an Information which reads:
The undersigned Prosecutor II hereby accuses ZEDRIC SAYCO Y VILLANUEVA of
the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions penalized and defined under
Section 1 of Presidential Decree Number 1866 as amended by Republic Act Number
8294, committed as follows:
That on or about January 3, 1999, at Bais City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there willfully, unlawfullyand feloniously possess and carry away one (1) caliber 9MM marked "SIGSAUER P229"
with fourteen (14) live ammunitions and with Serial Number AE 25171, without first
having obtained the proper license or authority to possess the same.
An act contrary.4
Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of "Not Guilty".5
On August 2, 2002, the MTCC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds that the evidence presented hassufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused
Zedric V. Sayco is convicted for violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866,
as amended by Republic Act No. 8294. There being no modifying circumstances, andapplying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentences the accused to a prison
term ranging from THREE YEARS, SIX MONTHS AND TWENTY DAYS of Prision
Correccional Medium as minimum, to FIVE YEARS, FOUR MONTHS and TWENTY
DAYS of Prision Correccional Maximum as maximum, and to pay a fine of FIFTEEN
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt17/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
12/60
THOUSAND PESOS. The firearm (Exhibit A) and the ammunitions (Exhibit B) are
forfeited in favor of the government, to be disposed of in accordance with law.
IT IS SO ORDERED.6
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bais City issued a Decision dated March 14, 2003,affirming the conviction of petitioner but lowering his penalty as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Judgment dated August 2, 2002 rendered by the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bais City in Criminal Case No. 99-001 is herebyaffirmed in all respects subject only to the modification with respect to the penalty
imposed by the trial court. The herein accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to the
indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor as maximum [sic] to two (2)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as maximum [sic].
SO ORDERED.7
Petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for Review but the same was denied in the May 23, 2003
CA Resolution assailed herein. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration8was also denied by the
CA in its August 7, 2003 Resolution.
Hence, the present Petition raising the following issues:
I
Whether the lower court erred in convicting the petitioner for violation of P.D. 1866, as
amended by RA 8294, despite the latter's proof of authority to possess the subject
firearm.
II
Whether the prosecution's evidence proved the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.9
As summarized by the RTC and MTCC, the evidence for the prosecution consisted of the
following:
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
The first prosecution witness in the person of PO3 Mariano Labe testified on January 17,
2002. He declared that on or about 3:35 in the afternoon of January 3, 1999, while they
were at the Police Station, they received a telephone call from a concerned citizen fromTavera Street, Bais City, informing them that one unidentified person was inside
Abueva's Repair Shop located at Tavera Street, tucking a handgun on his waist. They
immediately went to the aforementioned place, and upon their arrival thereat, they sawone unidentified person tucking a handgun on his right side waistline. They approached
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt67/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
13/60
the unidentified person and asked him if he had a license to possess said firearm, but
the answer was in the negative. At this juncture, they immediately effected the arrest,and confiscated from his possession and custody a Caliber 9MM marked "SIGSAUER
P299" with 14 live ammunitions with Serial No. AE 25171. The arrested person was
identified as Zedric Sayco y Villanueva, a resident of Binalbagan, Negros Occidental.
SPO2 VALENTINO ZAMORA, member of the PNP Bais City, testified on February 26,
2002. He was presented to corroborate the testimony of Mariano Labe. He furtherdeclared that during the incident, they talked to the accused in Cebuano, but they found
out then that the latter is an Ilonggo, so they spoke to him in English.
SPO2 VICENTE DORADO also testified on February 26, 2002. He corroborated the
testimony of SPO2 Valentino Zamora and PO2 Mariano Labe.
The following exhibits were admitted as part of the evidence of the prosecution:
Exhibit A - one (1) 9 mm pistol with serial no. 25171.
Exhibit B - fourteen (14) pieces live ammunition and one (1) magazine placed in a black
plastic bag.
Exhibit C - Joint Affidavit of the police officers.10
(Emphasis supplied)
For his defense, petitioner does not deny that he was in possession of the subject firearm and
ammunitions when he was apprehended on January 3, 1999 in Bais City, but he insists that hehad the requisite permits to carry the same, specifically:
1) Memorandum Receipt for Equipment (Non-expendable Property), which reads:
Hqs Field Station 743, 7ISU, ISG, PA, Camp Montelibano Sr., Bacolod City,Philippines, 01 January 1999. I acknowledge to have received from MAJOR
RICARDO B. BAYHON (INF) PA, Commanding Officer, FS743, 7ISU, ISG, PA
the following property for which I am responsible, subject to the provision of the
accounting law and which will be used in the office of FS 7431.
QTY UNIT NAME OF
DESCRIPTION
CLASSI
FICATION
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
1 ea Cal 9mm (SIG SAUER)
SN: AE 25171
Pistol
2 ea Mags for Cal 9mm pistol
24 ea Ctgs for 9mm Ammo
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x- NOTHING FOLLOWS -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt107/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
14/60
Basis: For use of subject EP in connection with his official duties/mission in the
AOR.
NOTED BY:
Nolasco B. James (SGD)SSg (Inf) PA
FS Supply NCO
APPROVED BY:
RICARDO B BAYHON(SGD)
Major (INF) PA
Commanding Officer
CA Zedric V. Zayco (SGD)
Confidential Agent;11
and 2) Mission Order dated January 1, 1999, thus:
Mission Orders
Number: FS743-A-241
TO: CA Cedric V. Zayco
I. DESTINATION Negros Island
II. PURPOSE C O N F I D E N T I A L
III. DURATION 01 January 1999 to 31 March 1999
IV. AUTHORIZED ATTIRE/UNIFORM
GOA ( ) BDA ( ) Civilian (x)
V. AUTHORIZED TO CARRY FIREARMS: (x) Yes ( ) No.
Caliber Make Kind Serial Nr MR/License Nr Nr Ammo
9mm Sig Sauer Pistol AE25171 ISG Prop 24 rds
VI. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS:
a. For personnel in uniform, the firearms shall be placed in holster
securely attached to the belt. Personnel in uniform without holster and
personnel in civilian attire will ensure that their firearms are concealedunless in actual and lawful use.
x x x x
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt117/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
15/60
RICARDO B. BAYHON (SGD)
Major (INF) PAFS 743 Commander12
The RTC and MTCC gave no significance to the foregoing documents. The MTCC held that the
Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order do not constitute the license required by law because
"they were not issued by the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosives Unit, but
by the Commanding Officer of the Philippine Army who is not authorized by law to issuelicenses to civilians to possess firearms and ammunitions."13The RTC added that, as held inPastrano v. Court of Appeals
14andBelga v. Buban,
15said documents cannot take the place of the
requisite license.16
The CA wholly concurred with both courts.
In the present Petition, petitioner insists that he is a confidential agent of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), and it was in that capacity that he received the subject firearm and
ammunitions from the AFP. As said firearm and ammunitions are government property dulylicensed to the Intelligence Security Group (ISG) of the AFP, the same could not be licensed
under his name;17
instead, what he obtained were a Memorandum Receipt and a Mission Order
whereby ISG entrusted to him the subject firearm and ammunitions and authorized him to carrythe same around Bacolod City. Petitioner further argues that he merely acted in good faith when
he relied on the Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order for authority to carry said firearm and
ammunitions; thus, it would be a grave injustice if he were to be punished for the deficiency of
said documents.18
The Solicitor General filed his Comment,19
pointing out that good faith is not a valid defense in
the crime of illegal possession of firearms.20
The arguments of petitioner are not tenable.
The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of firearms is the accused's lack of license or
permit to possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited by law .21
To establishthe corpus delicti, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the firearm exists and that the
accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess
or carry the same.22
There is no dispute over these key facts: first, that the subject firearm and ammunitions exist;
second, that petitioner had possession thereof at the time of his apprehension; third, that
petitioner is a confidential agent of the ISG-AFP; fourth, that petitioner lacks a license issued bythe Firearms and Explosives Unit of the PNP; and fifth, that petitioner holds a Memorandum
Receipt and Mission Order covering the subject firearm and ammunitions. Thus, the issue to be
resolved is confined to whether petitioner's Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order constitutesufficient authority for him to possess the subject firearm and ammunitions and carry the same
outside of his residence, without violating P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt127/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
16/60
As correctly cited by the Solicitor General, it is a settled jurisprudence that a memorandum
receipt and mission order cannot take the place of a duly issued firearms license ,23
and anaccused who relies on said documents cannot invoke good faith as a defense against a
prosecution for illegal possession of firearms, as this is a malum prohibitum.24
Petitioner
interposed no new argument that would convince this Court to abandon a deep-rooted
jurisprudence.
However, rather than outrightly dismiss the present petition in the light of existing jurisprudence,this Court finds it opportune to examine the rules governing the issuance of memorandum
receipts and mission orders covering government-owned firearms to special and confidential
civilian agents, in order to pave the way for a more effective regulation of the proliferation ofsuch firearms and the abatement of crimes, such as extra-judicial killings, attendant to such
phenomenon.
In 1901, the United States Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 175, providing for theorganization of an Insular Constabulary. Section 6 vested in the Chief of the Insular
Constabulary the following authority over the distribution of firearms:
Section 6. The Insular Chief shall prescribe for the Insular Constabulary suitable arms,
uniform, and equipment and shall report to the Commission, through the Civil Governor,
his action in this regard, together with a statement of the cost, to the end thatappropriation may be made to defray the cost thereof. The guns, revolvers, and
ammunitions needed to equip the insular and municipal police shall be purchased
by the Insular Purchasing Agent on the order of the Chief of Insular Constabulary,
by whom they shall be distributed to the provinces and municipalities as they may
be needed. The Chief of the Insular Constabulary shall keep a record of the guns
and revolvers distributed, by their numbers, to municipalities and provinces x x x.
(Emphasis supplied)
Firearms owned by the government may therefore be distributed by the Chief of the Insular
Constabulary to the members of the insular and municipal police, with merely a record of thedistribution being required.
Shortly, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 178025regulating possession of firearms:
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, for purposes of sale,to import, buy or otherwise acquire, dispose of, possess, or have the custody of any rifle,
musket, carbine, shotgun, revolver, pistol, or air rifle, except air rifles of small caliber and
limited range used as toys, or any other deadly weapon x x x unless and until such
person, firm, or corporation shall secure a license, pay the license fee, and execute a
bond and otherwise comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules and
regulations issued in executive orders by the Governor-General pursuant to the provisions
of this Act x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
but exempted therefrom the following government-owned firearms:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt237/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
17/60
Section 16. The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to firearms and
ammunition therefor regularly and lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or
marines of the United States Army and Navy, the Constabulary, guards in the
employ of the Bureau of Prisons, the police force of the City of Manila, provincial
prisoners and jails when such firearms are in possession of such officials and public
servants for use in the performance of their official duties. (Emphasis supplied)
The 1917 Revised Administrative Code26
retained the foregoing exemption:
Section 879.Exemption as to firearms and ammunition used by military and naval forces
or by peace officers. - This article shall not apply to firearms and ammunition
regularly and lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or marines of the Unites
States Army and Navy, the Philippine Constabulary, guards in the employment of
the Bureau of Prisons, municipal police, provincial governors, lieutenant governors,
provincial treasurers, municipal police, provincial governors, lieutenant governors,
provincial treasurers, municipal treasurers, municipal presidents, and guards of
provincial prisoners and jails, when such firearms are in possession of such officialsand public servants for use in the performance of their official duties.(Emphasissupplied)
In People of the Philippines v. Macarandang,27
we interpreted Section 879 of the 1917 RevisedAdministrative Code as applicable to a secret agent appointed by a governor as said agent holds a
position equivalent to that of peace officer or member of the municipal police. We reiterated this
ruling in People of the Philippines v. Licera.28
In People v. Asa,29
we acquitted a civilian guard from a charge of illegal possession of firearms
on the ground that he acted in good faith in bearing the firearms issued to him by his superior.
Two years later, in People v. Mapa,30
the Court, speaking through Justice Fernando, overhauled
its interpretation of Section 879, thus:
The law is explicit that except as thereafter specially allowed, "it shall be unlawful forany person to x x x possess any firearm, detached parts of firearms or ammunition
therefor, or any instrument or implement used or intended to be used in the manufacture
of firearms, parts of firearms, or ammunition." The next section provides that "firearms
and ammunition regularly and lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or marines [ofthe Armed Forces of the Philippines], the Philippine Constabulary, guards in the
employment of the Bureau of Prisons, municipal police, provincial governors, lieutenant
governors, provincial treasurers, municipal treasurers, municipal mayors, and guards of
provincial prisoners and jails," are not covered "when such firearms are in possession ofsuch officials and public servants for use in the performance of their official duties."
The law cannot be any clearer. No provision is made for a secret agent. As such he is
not exempt. Our task is equally clear. The first and fundamental duty of courts is to
apply the law. "Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt267/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
18/60
that application is impossible or inadequate without them." The conviction of the accused
must stand. It cannot be set aside.
Accused however would rely on People v. Macarandang, where a secret agent was
acquitted on appeal on the assumption that the appointment "of the accused as a secret
agent to assist in the maintenance of peace and order campaigns and detection of crimes,sufficiently put him within the category of a "peace officer" equivalent even to a member
of the municipal police expressly covered by section 879." Such reliance is misplaced.
It is not within the power of this Court to set aside the clear and explicit mandate of
a statutory provision. To the extent therefore that this decision conflicts with what
was held in People v. Macarandang, it no longer speaks with authority.31
(Emphasissupplied)
We also abandoned the view that good faith is a defense against a prosecution for illegal
possession of firearms.32
On June 29, 1983, P.D. No. 1866 was issued, imposing stiffer penalties on illegal possession offirearms. It also added the following separate requirement for carrying firearms:
Section 1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms
and ammunition or implements used or intended to be used in the manufacture of
firearms or ammunition. - x x x The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon anyperson who shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal authority
therefor.
x x x x
Section 7. Unauthorized issuance of authority to carry firearms and/or ammunitionoutside of residence. - The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon anyperson, civilian or military, who shall issue authority to carry firearm and/or ammunition
outside of residence without authority therefor.
P.D. No. 1866 was later amended by R.A. No. 8294,33which lowered the imposable penalties for
illegal possession of firearm when no other crime is committed. However, neither law amended
or repealed Section 879 of the 1917 Revised Administrative Code. Even Executive Order No.292, otherwise known as the 1987 Administrative Code,34left Section 879 untouched.
As matters stand, therefore, Section 879, as construed by this Court in Mapa and Neri, and
reinforced by paragraph 6, Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, is still thebasic law on the issuance, possession and carrying of government-owned firearms.
In exercise of its rule-making authority under Section 835of P.D. No. 1866, the Chief of the
Philippine Constabulary issued The Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. No. 1866,
which includes the following provisions salient to the issuance, possession and carrying ofgovernment-owned firearms:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt317/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
19/60
Section 1.Definition of terms. - For purposes of Presidential Decree No. 1866, the
following terms shall mean and be interpreted as hereinafter defined:
x x x x
d. "Mission Order" - is a written directive or order issued by government authority asenumerated in Section 5 hereof to persons who are under his supervision and control for a
definite purpose or objective during a specified period and to such place or places astherein mentioned which may entitle the bearer thereof to carry his duly issued orlicensed firearm outside of his residence when so specified therein.
e. "Permit to Carry Firearm Outside of Residence" - is a written authority issued to any
person by the Chief of Constabulary which entitles such person to carry his licensed or
lawfully issued firearms outside of residence for the duration and purpose specifiedtherein.
f. "Residence" - refers to that place where the firearm and ammunition are beingpermanently kept. It includes the office or house where they are kept and the premises of
the house enclosed by walls and gates separating said premises from adjacent properties.
For firearms covered bya regular license or special permit, their residence shall be thatspecified in the license or permit; and those covered by a Certificate of Registration or a
Memorandum Receipt, their residence in the office/station to which the granteebelongs.
x x x x
Section 5.Authority to issue mission order involving the carrying of firearm. - The
following are authorized to issue mission orders with provisions which may entitle thebearer thereof to carry his issued/licensed firearm and ammunition for the duration ofsuch mission:
a. For officers, men and regular civilian agents of the Ministry of National Defense(MOND)/Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) including members of the ICHDF:
x x x x
(8) Provincial commanders, METRODISCOM commanders, company commanders and
their equivalent in the Philippine Air Force and Philippine Navy.
x x x x
Section 6. Specific guidelines in the carrying of firearms outside of residence. - The
following specific guidelines shall be strictly observed in the carrying of firearm outsideof residence:
7/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
20/60
a. Lawful Holders of FirearmLawful holders of firearm (regular licenses, special
permit, certificate of registration or M/R) are prohibited from carrying their firearmsoutside of residence except when they have been issued by the Chief of Constabulary a
permit to carry firearm outside of their residence as provided for in Section hereof or inactual performance of duty or official mission under Section 4 and 5 hereof.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Section 6 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations was later amended to read as follows:
a-1.Mission Order. - x x x No Mission Order shall be issued to any civilian agent
authorizing the same to carry firearms outside of residence unless he/she is included in
the regular plantilla of the government agency involved in law enforcement and is
receiving regular compensation for the services he/she is rendering in the agency.
Further, the civilian agent must be included in a specific law
enforcement/police/intelligence project proposal or special project which specificallyrequires the use of firearm(s) to insure its accomplishment and that the project is duly
approved at the PC Regional Command level or its equivalent level in other majorservices of the AFP, INP and NBI, or at higher level of command. (Emphasis supplied)
The Ministry of Justice also issued Memorandum Circular No. 8 dated October 16, 1986, further
strengthening the foregoing Implementing Rules and Regulations, to wit:
x x x It is unlawful for any person or office to issue a mission order authorizing the
carrying of firearms by any person unless the following conditions are met:
1. That the AFP officer is authorized by the law to issue the mission order.
2. That the recipient or addressee of the mission order is also authorized by the law tohave a mission order, i.e., he must be an organic member of the command/unit of theAFP officer issuing the mission order.If mission orders are issued to civilians (not
members of the uniformed service), they must be civilian agents included in the
regular plantilla of the government agency involved in law enforcement and are
receiving regular compensation for services they are rendering. (Emphasis supplied)
Earlier, a Letter Directive dated May 19, 198436
was issued to the Chief of Staff of the AFP,prohibiting the issuance of government-owned firearms to civilians, viz:
4. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. 1866 which codifies all the laws on
firearms and explosives clarify the following:
x x x x
b. Section 5 identifies the officials/officers of the MOND/AFP who are authorized to
issue Mission Orders to enable AFP officers, men and regular civilian agents carry theirfirearms in the performance of their duties. Regular civilian agents are those who are
covered by Permanent or Temporary Civil Service attested appointments in the plantilla
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt367/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
21/60
of civilian employees. Special or confidential civilian agents or the like are not
regular civilian agents and are therefore violating the law when they carry firearms
(personal-owned or government-issued) with Mission Orders.
c. There are no other laws or AFP regulations authorizing the loan of AFP-owned
firearms to private firms and individuals. (Emphasis supplied)
It is noted that the Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. No. 1866, as amended, allude to"memorandum receipts" covering government-owned firearms. While said rules do not define
the term, we can derive its meaning from Section 492 of the Government Auditing and
Accounting Manual (Volume I: Government Auditing Rules and Regulations)37
to wit:
Section 492.Issues of equipment to officers and employees. - Equipment issued by the
property officer for official use of officials and employees shall be covered by
Memorandum Receipt for Equipment (MR) which shall be renewed every January of
the third year after issue. MRs not renewed after three years shall not be considered in
making physical count of the equipment. (Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing discussion, therefore, the rules governing memorandum receipts and mission
orders covering the issuance to and the possession and/or carrying of government-ownedfirearms by special or confidential civilian agents may be synthesized as follows:
First, special or confidential civilian agents who are not included in the regularplantilla of anygovernment agency involved in law enforcement or receiving regular compensation for services
rendered are not exempt from the requirements under P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No.
8294, of a regular license to possess firearms and a permit to carry the same outside of residence;
Second, said special or confidential civilian agents are not qualified to receive, obtain andpossess government-owned firearms. Their ineligibility will not be cured by the issuance of amemorandum receipt for equipment covering said government-owned firearms. Neither will they
qualify for exemption from the requirements of a regular firearms license and a permit to carry
firearms by the mere issuance to them of a government-owned firearms covered by amemorandum receipt; and
Third, said special or confidential civilian agents do not qualify for mission orders to carryfirearms (whether private-owned or government-owned) outside of their residence.
The foregoing rules do not apply to special or confidential civilian agents in possession of or
bearing private-owned firearms that are duly licensed and covered by permits to carry the sameoutside of residence.
Set against the foregoing rules, it is clear that petitioner is not authorized to possess and carry the
subject firearm and ammunition, notwithstanding the memorandum receipt and mission order
which were illegally issued to him. Petitioner is a planter38
who was recruited to assist in thecounter-insurgency campaign of the AFP.39However, as he offered no evidence that he is in the
regularplantilla of the AFP or that he is receiving regular compensation from said agency, he
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt377/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
22/60
cannot be considered a regular civilian agent but a mere confidential civilian agent as defined
under Section 6(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. No. 1866. As such, hewas not authorized to receive the subject government-owned firearm and ammunitions. The
memorandum receipt he signed to account for said government properties did not legitimize his
possession thereof.
Neither was petitioner authorized to bear the subject firearm and ammunitions outside of his
residence. The mission order issued to petitioner was illegal, given that he is not a regularcivilian agent but a mere confidential civilian agent. Worse, petitioner was not even acting as
such confidential civilian agent at the time he was carrying the subject firearm and ammunitions.
Petitioner testified that at that time, he was not on an official mission in Bais City but had merelyvisited the place to attend to a family emergency.40
While this Court sustains the conviction of petitioner for illegal possession of firearms, we re-
examine the imprisonment term to which petitioner was sentenced by the RTC, as affirmed bythe CA.
The MTCC imposed on petitioner the penalty of imprisonment for three (3) years, six (6) months
and twenty (20) days ofprision correccional medium as minimum, to five (5) years, four (4)
months and twenty (20) days ofprision correccional maximum as maximum.41
Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the RTC lowered the penalty to four (4) months ofarresto mayoras minimum, to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day ofprision correccional as
maximum.42
The CA affirmed the RTC.
A further revision of the penalty is warranted in view of the special provision in the
Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable to crimes penalized by a special law, to wit:
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by theRevised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of theattending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and
the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed
by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not
be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (Emphasis supplied)
P.D. No. 1866 imposed the penalty ofreclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusionperpetua for illegal possession of firearms. R.A. No. 8294 lowered the penalty, as follows:
Section 1. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:
Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of
Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the
Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. - The penalty of prision correccional in
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_159703_2008.html#fnt407/29/2019 spl sawdjaan
23/60
its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000)
shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in,acquire, dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun,
.380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or
machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of
any firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was committed.(Emphasis supplied.)
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code,prision correccional in its maximum period ranges
Top Related