Gonzales Vs CA

Gonzales vs CA
Romero, J.
GR No. 95523 – August 18, 1997
Short paragraph discussing what the case is about, as well as the Article involved.
FACTS:
• 2 Separate informations filed against petitioner Reynaldo Gonzales y Rivera for attempted
homicide and violation of PD 1866 (illegal possession of firearms)
• Facts according to prosecution:
• May 20, 1984 – Jaime, Dionisio, and Zenaida Verde chilling in front of their house at
around 6 pm
• Petitioner arrives with Bening Paguia and started insulting Zenaida and pushed her
• Jaime tried to restrain petitioner but then petitioner pulled out his Revolver (Caliber
.22/ aka Paltik) from his pocket and fired at Jaime but missed.
• Incident was reported to the police which conducted paraffin test that showed
petitioner’s right hand was positive for gunpowder residue
• Defense Version:
• On the said date and time, a commotion within his barrio attracted his attention
• They saw a group chasing an unidentified person running towards them with a gun in
hand; the mob shouted “Harangin.”
• During the chase, unidentified person tripped and dropped the gun which the
petitioner grabbed
• Unidentified person boarded a passing bus. At this point, the group chasing turned out
to be the Verdes who demanded the gun from the petitioner
• Petitioner refused to surrender gun which resulted into a scuffle during which the gun
accidentally went off without hitting anyone
• Trial court a quo acquitted him of attempted homicide but found him guilty of the offence of
illegal possession of firearms.
• Appealed to Court of Appeals; CA affirmed Trial Court decision
ISSUE/S:
[Procedural] 1. W/N the petitioner has waived his right to a preliminary investigation
• YES, it is a well-settled rule that the right to a preliminary investigation may be waived by
the failure to invoke it prior to or at least at the time of the accused’s plea
• When the petitioner entered into a plea to the charge, he is deemed to have waived the
right to preliminary investigation
[Substantive] 2. W/N the petitioner is actually guilty of illegal possession of firearms – YES
• 2 requisites: (1) the existence of the subject firearm, and (b) the fact that the accused who
owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license or permit to
possess.
• First requisite proven beyond dispute; subject firearm was recovered, identified,
and presented as evidence during trial
• Second requisite proven beyond dispute by prosecution; ownership not required
but only mere possession (not only physical possession but also constructive
possession, or subjection of a thing to one’s control or management)
• Testimony of petitioner is a lame defense that cannot overcome the solid evidence
• Testimony not in line with human experience (unidentified person being able to
board a bus despite tripping; unidentified person did not even attempt to recover
his revolver)
Regarding the penalty
• Penalty imposed by trial court and affirmed by appellate court (17 years, 4 mos, 1 day to 18
years, 8 months of reclusion temporal)
• Reduced in view of passage of R.A. 8294 (passed 2 months prior to decision) which lowers
penalty for violation of illegal possession of firearms. (retroactively applied because
favourable to accused)
• Prior to RA 8294, penalty was reclusion temporal in maximum period to reclusion
perpetua;
• After enactment of RA 8294, penalty reduced to prision correccional in maximum
period and a fine not less than P15,000
• Applying Indeterminate Sentence Law, principal penalty for simple possession of firearms is
4 years and 2 months minimum to 6 years maximum and a fine of P15,000
JUDGEMENT
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining petitioner’s conviction by the lower court
of the crime of simple illegal possession of firearm is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the
penalty is reduced to “four (4) years and two (2) months, as minimum, to six (6) years, as maximum.”
Since the petitioner has already served nine (9) years, nine (9) months and twenty-three (23) days,
which is well beyond the maximum principal penalty imposed for his offense, as well as the subsidiary
penalty for the unpaid fine, he is hereby ordered RELEASED immediately, unless he is being held for
some other lawful cause.

Gonzales Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzales Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzales Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzales vs CA

You might also like