Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84385:60684&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:28:36+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015 - ARNULFO A.K.A. ARNOLD JACABAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
ARNULFO A.K.A. ARNOLD JACABAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the Decision1 dated July 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City, which affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Cebu City, finding petitioner guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act (RA) 8294.
11. One (1) damage carrying handle for caliber 5.56 rifle.
without first securing the necessary license/permit issued therefor from any competent authority.
Evidence for the prosecution established that on July 15, 1999, Police Senior Inspector Ipil H. Dueñas (P/SInsp. Dueñas) of the now defunct Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) filed an Application for Search Warrant before Branch 22 of the RTC, Cebu City, to search the premises of [appellant's] residence at J. Labra St., Guadalupe, Cebu City and seize the following items.
A Search Warrant was then immediately issued to the applicant by Judge Pampio A. Abarintos.
At about 12:45 in the morning of July 16, 1999, the search warrant was implemented by P/S Insp. Dueñas as the team leader, SPO2 Eric Mendoza, SPO2 Eric Abellana. PO1 Allan Jalagpas, PO3 Epifania Manila Sarte and other members of the PAOCTF. Before reaching appellant's house, the policemen invited three (3) barangay tanods from Guadalupe's Barangay outpost to accompany them to the house of the appellant.
Upon arrival to appellant's house, SPO2 Abellana served the search warrant to appellant who was just inside the house together with his wife and other ladies. Upon informing appellant of the search warrant, he became angry and denied having committed any illegal activity. P/SInsp. Dueñas assured appellant that he had nothing to worry about if the PAOCTF would not find anything.
The team proceeded to search the living room in the presence of three tanods and the appellant himself. The team continued to search the room where SPO2 Abellana found a calibre .45 placed in the ceiling. Appellant, who was at the living room that time, rushed to the room and grappled with SPO2 Abellana but failed to get hold of the gun.
After an exhaustive search was done, other firearms and ammunitions were recovered from the searched premises. An inventory was made at the living room of appellant in the presence of appellant himself, the barangay tanods and other persons present during the search. After appellant and the witnesses signed the inventory receipt, the team proceeded back to their office with appellant and the confiscated items.
Police Officer IV Dionisio V. Sultan, Chief Clerk of the Firearms and Explosives Division of the Philippine National Police-Visayas (FED PNP-Visayas), testified that he prepared a certification dated April 29, 2002. Based on their office's master, appellant is not licensed to possess any kind of firearm or ammunition.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding ACCUSED ARNULFO a.k.a. ARNOLD JACABAN GUILTY of the crime of violation of PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294 and sentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of from SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as minimum to SIX (6) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS, as maximum, plus fine in the amount of P30,000.
With cost against the accused.
In so ruling, the RTC found that the prosecution had established all the elements of the crime charged. Petitioner was in possession of the firearm, ammunitions and other items with intent to possess the same as they were found inside his house; and he had no license or permit to possess the same from any competent authority. The RTC did not give credence to petitioner’s claim that he is not the owner of the house but his uncle, Gabriel Arda, as the latter did not testify at all and was not in the house at the time of the raid. It was petitioner and his wife who were at the house at 12:45 a.m. of July 16, 1999; and that petitioner did not protest his arrest.
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the CA. After the respective briefs had been filed, the case was submitted for decision.
On July 30, 2008, the CA issued its assailed Decision which affirmed in toto the RTC decision.
The CA agreed with the RTC’s conclusion that the elements of the crime charged were duly proved by the prosecution. Anent petitioner’s claim of the alleged discrepancy in the testimony of PO3 Sarte on the time the raid was conducted, the CA found the same to be minor and did not damage the essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence in its material whole; and that such discrepancy was explained by PO3 Sarte in her testimony.
Hence, this petition for review filed by petitioner.
Petitioner argues that the RTC decision finding him guilty of the crime charged is premised on its erroneous conclusion that he is the owner the house where the unlicensed firearms and ammunitions were found. He reiterated his claim that there was discrepancy in the testimony of PO3 Sarte as to the time the raid was conducted.
As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.8 As such, we are not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. The findings of facts by a trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court.9 This rule, however, is not without exceptions.10 However, petitioner failed to show that his case falls under any of the exceptions.
That no other crime was committed by the person arrested.
Here, the prosecution had proved the essential elements of the crime charged under PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294. The existence of the seized firearm and the ammunitions was established through the testimony of PO3 Sarte. There was an inventory of the items seized which was made in the presence of the petitioner and the three barangay tanods who all voluntarily signed the inventory receipt. PO3 Sarte identified all the seized items in open court.
It was convincingly proved that petitioner had constructive possession of the gun and the ammunitions, coupled with the intent to possess the same. Petitioner's act of immediately rushing from the living room to the room where SPO2 Abellana found a calibre .45 and grappled with the latter for the possession of the gun proved that the gun was under his control and management. He also had the animus possidendi or intent to possess the gun when he tried to wrest it from SPO2 Abellana.
Petitioner's lack of authority to possess the firearm was established by the testimony of Police Officer IV Dionisio V. Sultan, Chief Clerk of the Firearms and Explosive Division of the Philippine National Police-Visayas (FED-PNP- Visayas) that petitioner is not licensed to possess any kind of firearm or ammunition based on the FED-PNP master list.
protested his arrest. But in the instant case Felipenieri (sic) Jacaban said that there was no protest at all.
If the accused is not really the owner of the house raided by the police officers, what was he and his wife doing there at 12:45 in the morning?
The defense asserted that the house of the accused was already demolished when the road fronting it was widened. But the defense failed to present the tax declaration covering the said house before it was demolished.
Gabriel Arda, the alleged owner of the house did not testify. He was allegedly suffering from hypertension. The defense, however, did not file a motion to take his deposition.
Even assuming that petitioner is not the owner of the house where the items were recovered, the ownership of the house is not an essential element of the crime under PD 1866 as amended. While petitioner may not be the owner, he indeed had control of the house as shown by the following circumstances: (1) When the PAOCTF went to the house to serve the search warrant, petitioner was very angry and restless and even denied having committed any illegal act, but he was assured by P/SInsp. Dueñas that he has nothing to answer if they would not find anything, thus, he consented to the search being conducted; (2) while the search was ongoing, petitioner merely observed the conduct of the search and did not make any protest at all; and (3) petitioner did not call for the alleged owner of the house.
Appellant likewise questions the discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witness PO3 Epifania Sarte. Appellant contends that PO3 Sarte could not even testify correctly as to the time the raid was conducted. According to appellant, the established fact on records shows that it was conducted past midnight of July 16, 1999 while witness PO3 Sarte asserted that it was conducted at 12:45 high noon of said date.
While in 2013, RA 10951 entitled “An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunitions and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof” took effect, the same finds no application in this case as the law provides for stiffer penalties which is not at all favorable to the accused.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated July 30, 2008, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional in its maximum period, as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor minimum in its medium period, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P30,000.00.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, with Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring; rollo, pp. 21-30.
2 Docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-51111.
6Id. at 31-38; Per Judge Meinrado P. Paredes.
8Salcedo v. People, 400 Phil. 1302, 1308 (2000).
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record (Id. at 1308-1309).
11Evangelista v. People, 634 Phil. 207, 227 (2010); People v. Eling, G.R. No. 178546, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 724, 738; Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 297, 305 (1997).
12Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, supra.
14People v. Lian, 325 Phil. 881, 889 (1996).
17Cupcupin v. People, 440 Phil. 712, 733 (2002).

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