Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=28799:g-r-no-76728-august-30,-1988-people-of-the-phil-v-reynaldo-cruz&amp;catid=1240&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:28:25+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee, v. REYNALDO CRUZ alias Rene Hapon defendant-appellant.
1.	CRIMINAL LAW; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS; ELEMENT; CASE AT BAR. — The appellant maintains that the revolver and hand grenade in question did not belong to him; nor was he in actual possession thereof at the time he was arrested. Ownership, however, is not an essential element of the offense charged. What the law requires is merely possession which includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to one’s control and management.
3.	CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; RIGHTS OF ACCUSED; WAIVER THEREOF MUST BE MADE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; CASE AT BAR. — It would appear that the police officers failed to comply with the strictures laid down by the Court in the cited case of Morales v. Ponce Enrile, for police officers to follow in a custodial investigation in that, while Police Sgt. Jesus Ordinario testified that he had informed the accused of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to be represented by counsel and that the accused waived such rights, the waiver of constitutional rights was not made with the assistance or even in the presence of counsel.
4.	REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CONVICTION; BASED ON THE STRENGTH OF THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE; CASE AT BAR. — However, the conviction of the appellant is not based upon his extrajudicial confession alone. The evidence presented by the prosecution, even without said extrajudicial confession, is abundant, to support a finding of guilt.
"On May 9, 1986, Lt. Noel Manabat, along with the elements of CRIG stationed at Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila acting on an intelligence information of a reliable informant that about noon of that day a stolen car, coming from Quezon City, was to be sold somewhere in Magallanes, Makati, nabbed Romeo Fernandez and Joey Flores at the intersection of EDSA and Timog Street and brought them to headquarters. After some questioning, these two (2) carnap suspects led the eight man-CRlG team to 61 Mabituan Street, Masambong, Quezon City where they alleged the other members of the carnap gang were waiting for their shares of the proceeds from the sale of a carnapped vehicle (Tsn., June 27, 1986, pp. 2-4). At said address, a sister of appellant, who owned the apartment, opened the door to the CRIG team. Inside the apartment, the team found appellant, sleeping on the floor, and gangmates Herminio Rivera and Lolito Timcang (Ibid. pp. 9 & 17). The team recognized appellant because he was pointed to by Romeo Fernandez and Joey Flores. These two also informed the team that appellant was armed and, sure enough, the team found a clutch bag (exhibit D) containing a caliber .38 paltik revolver (Exhibit B), one (1) live ammunition (Exhibit B-1) and a hand grenade (Exhibit C) under a bar, located one (1) meter away from the slumbering appellant (Ibid.). After waking him up, Sgt. Reynaldo Cachuela confronted him at once with these exhibits. Appellant, in the presence of all the eight-man CRIG team and gangmates admitted ownership of the bag, firearm, bullet and grenade (Ibid., p. 17). The team arrested appellant and the rest of his group, as well as confiscated the items of the crime.
"At headquarters, Lt. Noel Manabat and Sgt. Reynaldo Cachuela narrated under oath the incident (Joint Affidavit-Exhibits E, E-1 and E-2). At the same time, they turned over to Sgt. Jesus Ordinario, police investigator, the appellant and his party as well as Exhibits B, B-1 and C. Sgt. Jesus Ordinario took down the statement of appellant (Exhibit A) wherein appellant admitted ownership of Exhibits B, B-1, C and D, after informing him of his constitutional rights, such as, he had the right to remain silent the right to get his own counsel, and everything he would state in his statement might be used for or against him (Ibid, p. 10). Appellant was told that the camp had a lawyer who was ready to assist him but he replied that he needed no lawyer and was ready to confess the truth (Ibid, p. 11). And so page two (2) of Exhibit A reflected appellant’s answer to a question, thus: ‘Bakit ka naman may baril at granada, saan mo gagamitin? Nakuha sa posesyon ko . . . at iyon ay ipinabenta . . .’ After taking down the statement of appellant and the carnap suspects Herminio Rivera and Lolito Timcang, Sgt. Jesus Ordinario prepared a written referral of the case to the City Fiscal of Quezon City (Exhibit F), which was signed by Major Eduardo S. Amoyo (Ibid, p. 12). Later, appellant subscribed Exhibit A before Assistant Fiscal Monina Zenarosa (Ibid, pp. 14 and 18).
"Q	Who found the revolver Exh. B and the grenade Exh. C?
A	Sgt. Cachuela and I, sir.
Q	How about the revolver Exh. B where did you find that?
A	Also inside the bag, sir.
Q	Upon finding that, did you confront the accused Reynaldo Cruz as to the ownership?
A	We asked who owns the bag, and the group pointed to Reynaldo Cruz, sir.
Q	How about Reynaldo Cruz did you ask him if he is the owner of the revolver and the grenade in the bag?
Q	What did he tell?
Q	In your presence and before whom?
A	Before Sgt. Cachuela, sir.
The appellant assails the trial court for giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses which he claims to be hearsay, conflicting and biased, but the appellant does not point to specific portions of said testimony which are allegedly conflicting and biased.
"Q	How did you get inside the apartment?
A	With carnappers Romeo Fernandez and Joey Flores, Sir, who pinpointed the house of Reynaldo Cruz?
Q	After this pinpointing of the house, was the house closed?
Q	How did you come to get inside the house?
A	We were allowed by the owner of the house to go inside.
Q	Who is the owner of the house?
Finally, the accused, citing the case of Morales v. Ponce Enrile, 12 claims that the extrajudicial confession obtained from him during custodial investigation, 13 is inadmissible in evidence against him for having been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.
We agree. It would appear that the police officers failed to comply with the strictures laid down by the Court in the cited case of Morales v. Ponce Enrile, for police officers to follow in a custodial investigation in that, while Police Sgt. Jesus Ordinario testified that he had informed the accused of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to be represented by counsel and that the accused waived such rights, 14 the waiver of constitutional rights was not made with the assistance or even in the presence of counsel.
However, the conviction of the appellant is not based upon his extrajudicial confession alone. The evidence presented by the prosecution, even without said extrajudicial confession, is abundant, to support a finding of guilt.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against the Accused-Appellant.
1.	Original Record, p. 1.
4.	Appellee’s Brief, pp. 3-6.
5.	T.s.n. of July 16, 1986, pp. 2-4.
6.	T.s.n. of July 25, 1986, pp. 2-6.
7.	U.S. v. Juan, 23 Phil. 105; People v. Soyang, 110 Phil. 565.
8.	T.s.n. of June 27, 1986, pp. 5-6.
9.	Id., pp. 16, 17.
11.	G.R. No. L-1486, April 26, 1948, 80 Phil. 771.
12.	G.R. Nos. 61016-17, April 26, 1983, 121 SCRA 538, reiterated in People v. Galit, G.R No. 51770, March 20, 1985, 135 SCRA 465.
14.	T.s.n. of June 27, 1986, pp.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.