live ammunition; one (1) M-79 (single) rifle with pouch and with five

(5) empty shell[s]; one (1) home made caliber .38 with SN-311092
with five live ammunition and one empty shell of [a] cal. 38 x x x
Smith and Wesson; two (2) .38 Caliber paltik revolver with Serial
Number 311092 and one defaced M79 grenade launcher paltik,
without first having obtained the necessary license and or permit
therefor from authorities concerned, in flagrant violation of the
aforementioned law."7

The third Information,8 for multiple attempted murder with direct

assault, was worded thus:
THIRD DIVISION

"That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga,

G.R. Nos. 136149-51               September 19, 2000
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused being then armed with M-14 Armalite Rifles,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,  M-16 Armalite Rifles and other assorted firearms and explosives,
vs. conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting
WALPAN LADJAALAM y MIHAJIL alias "WARPAN," appellant. x x x one another and with intent to kill, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously try and attempt to kill SPO1 WILLIAM B.
JONES, JR., PO3 ENRIQUE C. RIVERA[,] SPO1 AMADO A. MIRASOL,
DECISION
JR., and SPO1 RICARDO J. LACASTESANTOS, in the following
manner, to wit: by then and there firing their M-14 x x x Armalite
PANGANIBAN, J.: Rifles, M-16 Armalite Rifles and other assorted firearms and
explosives, aimed and directed at the fatal parts of the bodies of the
Republic Act No. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms, above-named police officers, well known to the accused as members
provided that the person arrested committed "no other crime." of the Philippine National Police, Zamboanga City Police Office, and
Furthermore, if the person is held liable for murder or homicide, as such, agents of a person in authority, who at the time of the
illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance, but not attack were engaged in the performance of their duties, that is, on
a separate offense. Hence, where an accused was convicted of direct the occasion when said officers were about to serve the Search
assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an unlicensed M- Warrant legally issued by the Regional Trial Court, this City, to the
14 rifle at several policemen who were about to serve a search person of the accused thus commencing the commission of crime of
warrant, he cannot be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal multiple murder directly by overt acts, and if the accused did not
possession of firearms. Neither can such unlawful act be considered accomplish their unlawful purpose, that is, to kill the above-named
to have aggravated the direct assault. Police Officers, it was not by reason of their own voluntary
desistance but rather because of the fact that all the above-named
police officers were able to seek cover during the firing and were not
The Case hit by the bullets and explosives fired by the accused and also by the
fact said police officers were able to wrestle with two (2) of the
Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil, also known as "Warpan," appeals before accused namely: Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil a.k.a. ‘Warpan’ and
us the September 17, 1998 Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajairani, who were subdued and subsequently
(RTC) of Zamboanga City (Branch 16), which found him guilty of placed under arrest; whereas accused PO2 Nurhakim T. Hadjula was
three out of the four charges lodged against him. able to make good his escape and has remained at-large." 9

Filed against appellant were four Informations, 2 all signed by In the fourth Information, appellant was charged with illegal
Assistant Regional State Prosecutor Ricardo G. Cabaron and dated possession of drugs.10
September 25, 1997. The first Information 3 was for maintaining a
den for the use of regulated drugs. It reads as follows: On December 21, 1997, the cases against Nur-in Ladjaalam and
Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajaraini were dismissed upon motion of the Office
"That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga, of the City Prosecutor, which had conducted a reinvestigation of the
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the cases as ordered by the lower court. The accused were consequently
above-named accused, Walpan Ladjaalam being then the owner of a released from jail.
residential house located at Rio Hondo,4 this City, conspiring and
confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting x x x his co- The arraignment of appellant on all four (4) charges took place on
accused wife Nur-in Ladjaalam and Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajaraini, did January 6, 1998, during which he entered a plea of not guilty. 11 After
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, maintain said pretrial, the assailed Decision was rendered, the dispositive part of
house as a den, where regulated drug [was] used in any form." 5 which reads:

The second Information6 charged appellant with illegal possession of "WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused WALPAN LADJAALAM y
firearms and ammunition. We quote it below: MIHAJIL a.k.a. ‘WARPAN’ -

"That on or about September 24, 1997, in the City of Zamboanga, "1. in Criminal Case No. 14636, GUILTY BEYOND
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 15-A,
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together, Article III, of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as
mutually aiding and assisting with one another, without any the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, and
justifiable reason or purpose other than to use it in the commission SENTENCES said accused to the penalty of RECLUSION
of crime, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously PERPETUA and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED
have in their possession and under their custody and control, the THOUSAND (₱500,000.00) and to pay the costs;
following weapons, to wit: one (1) M14 rifle with SN 1555225 with
magazines and seven (7) rounds of live ammunition; two (2)
magazines with twenty (20) and twenty[-one] (21) rounds of live "2. In Criminal Case No. 14637, NOT GUILTY of Violation
[ammunition]; one (1) homemade caliber .38 revolver with five (5) of Section 16, Article III, in relation to Section 21, Article
IV, of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the
 Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, entered the house through the main door and went inside the sala of
and ACQUITS him of said crime with costs de oficio; the ground floor while other policemen surrounded the house. Two
(2) old women were in the sala together with a young girl and three
(3) children. One of the old women took the children to the second
"3. in Criminal Case No. 14638, GUILTY BEYOND
floor while the young girl remained seated at the corner (Ibid., pp.
REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Illegal Possession
19-21).
of Firearm and Ammunition penalized under Presidential
Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act. No. 8294,
and SENTENCES said accused to suffer an indeterminate "Lacastesantos and Mirasol proceeded to the second floor where
penalty of SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional as they earlier saw appellant firing an M14 rifle at them through the
minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor as window. While they were going upstairs, appellant noticed their
maximum and to pay a fine [of] THIRTY THOUSAND presence. He went inside the bedroom and, after breaking and
(P30,000.00) and pay the costs; removing the jalousies, jumped from the window to the roof of a
neighboring house. Seeing this, Mirasol rushed downstairs and asked
help from the other members of the raiding team to arrest appellant.
"4. in Criminal Case No. 14639, GUILTY BEYOND
Lacastesantos went to the second floor and shouted to the
REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Direct Assault with
policemen outside not to fire in the direction of the second floor
Multiple Attempted Homicide and SENTENCES said
because there were children. Mirasol and SPO1 Cesar Rabuya
accused to an indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS
arrested appellant at the back of his house after a brief chase (Ibid.,
and FOUR (4) MONTHS of prision correccional as
pp. 21-23).
minimum to SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional as
maximum and to pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND
(P1,000.00) and to pay the costs." (emphasis in the "At the second floor, Lacastesantos saw an M14 rifle (Exh. B-3) with
original) magazine on top of the sofa at the sala on the second floor (Ibid., P.
27). The rifle bore Serial No. 1555225. He removed the magazine
from the rifle and the bullet inside the chamber of the rifle. He
Hence, this appeal.12
counted seventeen (17) live ammunition inside the magazine. He
saw two (2) more M14 rifle magazines on the sofa, one with twenty
The Facts (20) live ammunition (Exh. G-3) and another with twenty-one (21)
live ammunition (Exh. G-4). He likewise saw three (3) M16 rifle
Prosecution’s Version magazines (Exh. G-2) in a corner at the second floor (TSN, March 5,
1998, pp. 23-32, 53-57).

In its Brief,13 the Office of the Solicitor General presents the facts in

this wise: "After Lacastesantos and Mirasol entered appellant’s house, Rivera,
Dela Peña, Gregorio and Obut followed and entered the house. After
identifying themselves as members of the PNP Anti-Vice/Narcotics
"At 1:45 p.m. of September 24, 1997, PO3 Allan Marcos Obut filed Unit, Obut presented to the old women a copy of the search
an application for the issuance of a search warrant against appellant, warrant. Dela Peña and Rivera then searched appellant’s room on
his wife and some John Does (Exh. C). After the search warrant was the ground floor in the presence of Punong Barangay Elhano (TSN,
issued about 2:30 p.m. of the same day, a briefing was conducted March 3, 1998, pp. 41-43). On top of a table was a pencil case (Exh.
inside the office of the Anti-Vice/Narcotics Unit of the Zamboanga J) with fifty (50) folded aluminum foils inside (Exhs. J-1 to J-50),
City Police Office in connection with the service of the search each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or ‘shabu’.
warrant. The briefing was conducted by SPO2 Felipe Gaganting,
Chief of the Anti-Vice/Narcotics Unit. During the briefing, PO3 Renato
Dela Peña was assigned as presentor of the warrant. SPO1 Ricardo "Other items were found during the search, namely, assorted coins
Lacastesantos and PO3 Enrique Rivera were designated to conduct in different denominations (Exh. W; TSN, April 28, 1998, pp. 23-25),
the search. Other policemen were assigned as perimeter guards one (1) homemade .38 caliber revolver (Exh. B-2) with five (5) live
(TSN, March 3, 1998, pp. 33-36). [ammunition], one (1) M79 single rifle with [a] pouch containing five
(5) empty shells of an M79 rifle (Exh. B-4), and one (1) empty shell
of an M14 rifle (TSN, April 23, 1998, pp. 30-32).
"After the briefing, more than thirty (30) policemen headed by Police
Superintendent Edwin Soledad proceeded to the house of appellant
and his wife at Rio Hondo on board several police vehicles (TSN, "Rino Bartolome Locson was an informer of the Anti-Vice/Narcotics
March 4, 1998, p. 32; April 22, 1998, p. 54). Before they could reach Unit of the Zamboanga Police. [O]n the morning of September 24,
appellant’s house, three (3) persons sitting at a nearby store ran 1997, he was instructed by SPO2 Gaganting to go to appellant’s
towards the house shouting, ‘[P]olice, raid, raid’ (Ibid., March 3, house to buy ‘shabu.’ Locson knew appellant as a seller of ‘shabu’
1998, pp. 41, 43-44; April 23, 1998, p. 4). When the policemen were (TSN, April 22, 1998, p. 5) and had been to appellant’s house about
about ten (10) meters from the main gate of the house, they were fifteen (15) times before. He went to Rio Hondo and arrived at
met by a rapid burst of gunfire coming from the second floor of the appellant’s house at 3:20 p.m. He bought P300.00 worth of ‘shabu’
house. There was also gunfire at the back of the house (Ibid., March from appellant. The latter got three (3) decks of shabu from his
5, 1998, pp. 14-16). waist bag. Appellant instructed Locson to go behind the curtain
where there was a table. There were six (6) persons already
smoking. There was a lighted kerosene lamp made of a medicine
"SPO1 Mirasol, SPO2 Lacastesantos, PO3 Rivera, and PO3 Dela Peña bottle placed on the table. They asked Locson to smoke ‘shabu’ and
who were with the first group of policemen saw appellant fire an Locson obliged. He placed the three (3) decks of ‘shabu’ he bought
M14 rifle towards them. They all knew appellant. When they were on the table (Ibid., pp. 8-15).
fired upon, the group, together with SPO2 Gaganting, PO3 Obut and
Superintendent Soledad, sought cover at the concrete fence to
observe the movements at the second floor of the house while other "While they were smoking ‘shabu,’ Locson heard gunfire coming
policemen surrounded the house (Ibid., March 4, 1998, pp. 50-51). from appellant’s house. They all stood and entered appellant’s
compound but were instructed to pass [through] the other side.
They met appellant at the back of his house. Appellant told them to
"In front of the house was an extension building connected to the escape ‘because the police are already here.’ They scampered and
concrete fence (Ibid., pp. 45-46, 57-59, 73-76). Gaganting, Mirasol, ‘ran away because there were already shots.’ Locson jumped over
Lacastesantos, Gregorio, and Obut entered the door of the extension the fence and ran towards the seashore. Upon reaching a place near
building. Gaganting opened the main (steel) gate of the house. The
other members of the team then entered. Lacastesantos and Mirasol
the Fisheries School, he took a tricycle and went home (Ibid., pp. those who arrested him testified in Court. He was handcuffed and
17-19). placed inside a jeep parked at Rio Hondo Elementary School.
According to him, he did not fire a gun at the policemen from [t]he
second floor of his house. He said the ‘policemen’ [were] ‘the one[s]
"The following day, September 25, 1997, he went to the police
who fire[d] at us’ (tsn, p. 5, id.). If he fired a gun at the policemen
station and executed an affidavit (Exh. M) narrating what transpired
for sure they [would] die ‘[b]ecause the door is very near x x x the
at appellant’s house [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997.
vicinity of my house’. He does not own the M14 rifle (Exh. ‘B-3’)
which according to policemen, he used in firing at them. The gun
"After the search and before returning to the police station, P03 Dela does not belong to him. He does not have a gun like that (tsn, p. 15,
Peña prepared a ‘Receipt for Property Seized’ (Exh. P & 3) listing the id.). A policeman also owns an M14 rifle but he does not know the
properties seized during the search. The receipt was signed by Dela policeman (tsn, pp. 16-17, id). He said that the M79 rifle (Exh. ‘B-4’),
Peña as the seizure officer, and by Punong Barangay Hadji Hussin the three (3) empty M16 rifle magazines (Exh. ‘G’; ‘G-1’ to ‘G-2’), the
Elhano and radio reporter Jun Cayona as witnesses. A copy of the two (2) M14 magazines with live ammunition (Exh. ‘G-3’; ‘G-4’); the
receipt was given to appellant but he refused to acknowledge the two (2) caliber .38 revolvers (Exhs. ‘B-1’; ‘B-2’), the fifty (50)
properties seized (TSN, April 23, 1998, pp. 11-12). aluminum foils each containing shabu (Exhs. ‘J-1’ to ‘J-50’) placed
inside a pencil case (Exh. ‘J’, the assorted coins placed inside a blue
"An examination conducted by Police Inspector Mercedes D. Diestro, bag (Exh. ‘W’) and the white crystalline stone (Exh. ‘K’) all do not
Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service Office 9, on belong to him. He said that the policemen just produced those things
the paraffin casts taken from both hands of appellant yielded as their evidence. The firearms do not belong to him. They were
positive for gunpowder nitrates (Exh. A-3), giving rise to the brought by the policemen (tsn, p. 43, May 4, 1998). Regarding the
possibility that appellant had fired a gun before the examination blue bag containing assorted coins, he said: ‘that is not ours, I think
(TSN, March 3, 1998, p. 11). Gunpowder residue examinations this (is) theirs, xxx they just brought that as their evidence’ (tsn, pp.
conducted on September 26, 1997 showed that the following 15-24, id.)
firearms ‘were fired’ (Exh. B-5): a .38 caliber revolver (homemade)
with Serial No. 311092 (Exh. B-1), another .38 caliber revolver "Walpan Ladjaalam declared there were occupants who were renting
(homemade) without a serial number (Exh. B-2), a Cal. 7.62 mm his extension house. He affirmed that he owns that house. Four (4)
M14 U.S. rifle with Serial No. 1555225 (Exh. B-3), and an M79 rifle persons were staying in the extension house. He could only
without a serial number (Exh. B-4). They were fired within five (5) recognize the husband whose name is Momoy. They are from Jolo.
days prior to the examination (TSN, March 3, 1998, pp. 16-21). They left the place already because they were afraid when the police
raided the place. (tsn, pp. 8-10, May 4, 1998). He does not know
"With respect to the crystalline substances, an examination prosecution witness Rino Locson y Bartolome. Although Locson
conducted by Police Inspector Susan M. Cayabyab, likewise a recognized him, in his case he does not know Locson and he does
Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service Office 9, on not recognize him (tsn, p.11, id). He did not sell anything to Locson
the fifty (50) pieces of folded aluminum foils each containing white and did not entertain him. He is not selling shabu but he knows ‘for
crystalline granules with a total weight of 1.7426 grams (Exh. J-1 to a fact that there are plenty of person who are engaged in selling
J-50) yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine shabu in that place’, in that area known as Aplaya, Rio Hondo. One
hydrochloride (shabu) (Exh. L). However, the examination of one (1) of them is Hadji Agbi (tsn, pp.11-14, id).
crystalline stone weighing 83.2674 grams (Exh. K) yielded negative
results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (Exh. L). "After his arrest Walpan Ladjaalam was brought to the police station
where he stayed for one day and one night before he was
"The records of the Regional Operation and Plans Division of the PNP transferred to the City jail. While at the police station, he was not
Firearm and Explosive Section show that appellant ‘had not able to take a bath. He smokes two packs of cigarette a day. While
applied/filed any application for license to possess firearm and he was at the police station, he smoked [a] cigarette given to him by
ammunition or x x x been given authority to carry [a] firearm outside his younger sister. He lighted the cigarettes with [a] match. From
of his residence’ (Exh. X)"14 the police station, he was brought to the PNP Regional Office at R.T.
Lim Boulevard where he was subject to paraffin examination (tsn,
pp. 24-26, May 4, 1998).
Defense’s Version
"During the raid conducted on his house, his cousin Boy Ladjaalam,
Appellant Ladjaalam agrees with the narration of facts given by the Ating Sapadi, and Jecar (Sikkal) Usman, the younger brother of his
lower court.15 Hence, we quote the pertinent parts of the assailed wife were killed. Walpan Ladjaalam said that he saw that ‘it was the
Decision: policeman who shot them[,] only I do not know his name." They
were killed at the back of his house. He said that no charges were
"Accused Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil a.k.a. ‘Warpan’, 30 years old, filed against the one responsible for their death (tsn, pp. 30-33- May
married, gave his occupation as ‘smuggling’ (tsn, p. 2, May 4, 1998). 4, 1998).
He used to go to Labuan in Malaysia and bring cigarettes to the
Philippines without paying taxes (tsn, pp. 40-41, id). He said that his "Anilhawa Ahamad, more or less 80 years old, a widow was in the
true name [was] Abdul Nasser Abdurakman and that Warpan or house of Walpan Ladjaalam whom he calls ‘Hadji Id’ at the time the
Walpan Ladjaalam [was] only his ‘alias’. However, he admitted that police raided the house. She is the mother of Ahma Sailabbi. She
more people kn[e]w him as Walpan Ladjaalam rather than Abdul was together with Babo Dandan, two small children and a helper
Nasser Abdurakman (tsn. pp. 39-40; 46-47, id). He testified that when ‘soldiers’ entered the house. ‘(W)hen they arrived, they kept
[o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997, when he was arrested by on firing (their guns) even inside the house’ (tsn, p.5, May 5, 1998).
the police, he was sleeping in the house of Dandao, a relative of his They were armed with short and long firearms. They searched the
wife. He was alone. He slept in Dandao’s house and not in his house house and scattered things and got what they wanted. They entered
because they ha[d] ‘a sort of a conference’ as Dandao’s daughter the room of Walpan Ladjaalam. They tried to open a bag containing
was leaving for Saudi Arabia. He noticed the presence of policemen jewelry. When Anilhawa tried to bring the bag outside the room,
in his neighborhood at Aplaya, Rio Hondo when he heard shots. He they grabbed the bag from her and poked a gun at her. At that time
woke up and went out of the house and that was the time that he Walpan Ladjaalam was not in the house. Ahamad Sailabbi was also
was arrested. He said he was arrested ‘xxx [at] the other side of my not in the house. A Search Warrant was shown to Anilhawa after the
house; at the other side of the fence where I was sleeping. xxx. At search was conducted and just before the policemen left the place.
the back of my house’ (tsn, p. 7, id.). He does not know who Anilhawa Ahamad said that ‘it was already late in the afternoon[;]
arrested him ‘considering that the one who arrested me does not before they left that was the time the Search Warrant (was) given to
have nameplate.’ He was arrested by four (4) persons. Not one of
us by xxx Barangay Captain Hussin Elhano’ (tsn, pp.6-8, May 5, violation of Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.18 The court a
1998). Barangay Chairman Elhano arrived ‘already late in the quo ruled:
afternoon, almost sundown’ (tsn, p. 9, id). Anilhaw declared that
aside from a bag containing jewelry and a bag full of money, she
"It should be stated at the outset that Search Warrant No. 20 is
had not seen anything else that was taken from Walpan Ladjaalam’s
totally ‘null and void’ because it was issued for more than one
house (tsn, pp. 9-12, id).
specific offense x x x contrary to Section 3, Rule 1[2]6 of the Rules
of Court which provides that ‘A search warrant shall not issue but
"Akmad (Ahmad) Sailabbi, 37 years old, married testified that about upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense xxx’. In
4:00 o’clock [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997, ha was Tambasan vs. People, 246 SCRA 184 (1995), the Supreme Court
standing in front of his house when policemen arrived and ruled that a search warrant for more than one offense - a ‘scatter
immediately arrested him. He was about to go to the City Proper to shot warrant’ - violates Section 3, Rule 126 of the [R]evised Rules of
buy articles he was intending to bring to Sabah. He had ‘around Court and is ‘totally null and void.’"19 (emphasis in the original)
P50,000.00’ placed inside a waist bag tied around his waist. The
policemen told him to lie down in prone position and a policeman
Nevertheless, the trial court deemed appellant’s arrest as valid. It
searched his back. They pulled his waist bag and took his DiaStar
emphasized that he had shot at the officers who were trying to serve
wrist watch. He was shot three times and was hit on the forehead
the void search warrant. This fact was established by the testimonies
leaving a scar. His injury was not treated. He was taken to the police
of several police officers, 20 who were participants in the raid, and
station where he was detained for one day and one night. He was
confirmed by the laboratory report on the paraffin tests conducted
detained at the City Jail for three months and five days after which
on the firearms and appellant.21 Additionally, the judge noted that
he was released (tsn, pp. 25-29, May 5, 1998).
Appellant Ladjaalam, based on his statements in his Counter
Affidavit, impliedly contradicted his assertions in open court that
"Melba Usma, 20 years old, a widow, testified that [o]n the there had been no exchange of gunfire during the raid.22 The trial
afternoon of September 24, 1997, she was in the house of her court concluded that the testimonies of these officers must prevail
parents lying together with her husband Sikkal Usma. There is only over appellant’s narration that he was not in his house when the raid
one house between her parents’ house and the house of Walpan was conducted.
Ladjaalam. Her husband Sikkal Usman is the brother of Nur-in
Ladjaalam, Walpan’s wife. When Melba heard shots, she went
Prescinding from this point, the court a quo validated the arrest of
downstairs. A policeman was looking for her husband. The
appellant, reasoning thus:
policeman called her husband. When her husband went down, he
was instructed by the policeman to lie down in prone position. Then
the policeman shot her husband. The policeman had two other "Under the circumstances, the policemen ‘had authority to pursue
companions who also shot her husband while he was lying down in and arrest Walpan Ladjaalam and confiscate the firearm he used in
prone position (tsn, pp.2-7, May 5, 1998). shooting at the policemen and to enter his house to effect said
arrest and confiscation of the firearm.’ Under Rule 113, Section 5
(a), of the Rules of Court, ‘A peace officer or a private person may,
"Murkisa Usman, 30 years old, married, declared that [o]n the
without a warrant, arrest a person xxx (w)hen in his presence, the
afternoon of September 24, 1997, she was sitting at the door of her
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
house watching her children playing when a motorcyle, driven by a
attempting to commit an offense.’ An offense is committed in the
person, stopped near her house. The driver was Gaganting whom
presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the
she called a soldier. He went down from his motorcycle, pulled a gun
rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees
and poked it at Murkisa. Murkisa stood up and raised her hands. She
the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances
got her children and when she was about to enter the room of her
created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. At the
house, Gaganting again poked a gun at her and ‘there was a shot.’
time the policemen entered the house of accused Walpan Ladjaalam
As a result of firing, three persons died, namely, Sikkal Usman, Boy
after he had fired shots at the policemen who intended to serve the
Ladjaalam and Atip Sapali Sali (tsn, pp. 8-10, May 5, 1998).
Search Warrant to him, the accused was engaged in the commission
of a crime, and was pursued and arrested after he committed the
"Barangay Captain Hadji Hussin Elhano, 51 years old, testified that crime of shooting at the policemen who were about to serve the
about 4:00 o ‘clock [o]n the afternoon of September 24, 1997, he Search Warrant."23
was fetched by two policemen at Catabangan where he was
attending a seminar. Because of traffic along the way, they arrived
As a consequence of the legal arrest, the seizure of the following
at the Rio Hondo already late in the afternoon. He saw policemen
was also deemed valid: the M14 rifle (with a magazine containing
were already inside the house. Upon entering the gate, he saw
seventeen live ammunition)24 used by appellant against the police
Walpan at the gate already handcuffed. Walpan called him but the
elements, two M14 magazines, and three other M16 rifle
police advised him not to approach Walpan. The search was already
magazines.25 The trial court observed that these items were in "plain
over and things were already taken inside the house. When he went
view" of the pursuing police officers. Moreover, it added that these
inside the house, he saw ‘the things that they (policemen) searched,
same items were "evidence [of] the commission of a crime and/or
the firearms and the shabu‘ (tsn, p. 17. May 8, 1998). He did not see
contraband and therefore, subject to seizure"26 since appellant "had
the Search Warrant. What was shown to him were the things
not applied for a license to possess firearm and had not been given
recovered during the search which were being listed. They were
authority to carry firearm outside his residence."27
being counted and placed on a table. ‘Upon seeing the things that
were recovered during the search, I just signed the receipt (Exh.
"P"; "P-1") of the things x x x taken during the search" (tsn, pp. 17- For being incredible and unsupported by evidence, appellant’s claim
18. May 8, 1998). He saw three dead bodies at the side of the fence that the items that were seized by the police officers had been
when he went to the other side of the house. The three persons planted was disbelieved by the trial court. It ruled that if the police
were killed outside the fence of Walpan Ladjaalam (tsn, p. 18, id)." 16 officers wanted to plant evidence to incriminate him, they could have
done so during the previous raids or those conducted after his
arrest. To its mind, it was unbelievable that they would choose to
The Trial Court’s Ruling
plant evidence, when they were accompanied by the barangay
chairman and a radio reporter who might testify against them. It
The trial court observed that the house of appellant was raided on then dismissed these allegations, saying that frame-up, like alibi,
September 24, 1997 by virtue of Search Warrant No. 20 issued on was an inherently weak defense.28
the same day. However, the lower court nullified the said Warrant
because it had been issued for more than one specific offense, 17 in
The trial court also convicted the accused of the crime of maintaining The Issues
a drug den. It reasoned as follows:
In his Brief, appellant submits the following Assignment of Errors:
"The testimony of Rino Bartolome Locson, corroborated by SPO1
Ricardo Lacastesantos and SPO1 Amado Mirasol, Jr. clearly
I
established that Walpan Ladjaalam operated and maintained a drug
den in his extension house where shabu or methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a regulated drug, was sold, and where persons or "The trial court erred when it concluded that appellant Walpan
customers bought and used shabu or methamphetamine Ladjaalam y Mihajil [had] fired first at the police officers who went to
hydrochloride by burning the said regulated drug and sniffing its his house to serve a search warrant upon him which led to an
smoke with the use of an aluminum foil tooter. A drug den is a lair or exchange of fire between Ladjaalam and the police officer.
hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any form
or are found. Its existence [may be] proved not only by direct II
evidence but may also be established by proof of facts and
circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the
house, or its general reputation among police officers. The "The trial court erred when it denied the appellant the right and
uncorroborated testimony of accused Walpan Ladjaalam opportunity for an ocular inspection of the scene of the firefight and
a.k.a. Warpan’ that he did not maintain an extension house or a where the house of the appellant [was] located.
room where drug users who allegedly buy shabu from him inhales or
smokes shabu cannot prevail over the testimonies of Locson, SPO1 III
Lacastesantos, and SPO1 Mirasol. He admitted that he is the owner
of the extension house but he alleged that there were four (4)
occupants who rented that extension house. He knew the name of "The trial court erred when it ruled that the presumption of
only one of the four occupants who are allegedly from Jolo, a certain regularity in the performance of their duties [excluded] the claim of
Momoy, the husband. Aside from being uncorroborated, Walpan’s the appellant that the firearms and methamphetamine hydrochloride
testimony was not elaborated by evidence as to when or for how (i.e. shabu) were planted by the police."31
long was the extension house rented, the amount of rental paid, or
by any other document showing that the extension house was in fact In the interest of simplicity, we shall take up these issues seriatim:
rented. The defense of denial put up by accused Walpan Ladjaalam (a) denial of the request for ocular inspection, (b) credibility of the
a.k.a. 'Warpan’ is a weak defense. Denial is the weakest defense and prosecution witnesses, and (c) the defense of frame-up. In addition,
cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the we shall also discuss the proper crimes and penalties to be imposed
prosecution witnesses. Denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and on appellant.
convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence which
deserve no weight in law and cannot be given evidentiary weight
over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative The Court’s Ruling
matters. As between the positive declaration of the prosecution
witnesses and the negative statements of the accused, the former The appeal has no merit.
deserve more credence."29
First Issue: Denial of Request for Ocular Inspection
In conclusion, the trial court explained appellant’s liability in this
manner:
Appellant insists that the trial court erred in denying his request for
an ocular inspection of the Ladjaalam residence. He argues that an
"x x x. The act of the accused in firing an M14 rifle to the policemen ocular inspection would have afforded the lower court "a better
who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant perspective and an idea with respect to the scene of the crime." 32 We
constitutes the crime of direct assault with multiple attempted do not agree.
homicide[,] not multiple attempted murder with direct assault[,]
considering that no policeman was hit and injured by the accused
We fail to see the need for an ocular inspection in this case,
and no circumstance was proved to qualify the attempted killing to
especially in the light of the clear testimonies of the prosecution
attempted murder.
witnesses.33 We note in particular that the defense had even
requested SPO1 Amado Mirasol Jr. to sketch the subject premises to
"The accused Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. ‘Warpan’ cannot be held give the lower court a fairly good idea of appellant’s house. 34 Viewing
liable [for] the crime of Violation of Section 16, Article III, in relation the site of the raid would have only delayed the
to Section 21, Article IV, of Republic Act 6425 otherwise known as proceedings.35 Moreover, the question whether to view the setting of
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1992, as amended, because the fifty a relevant event has long been recognized to be within the discretion
(50) pieces of folded aluminum foils having a total weight of 1.7426 of the trial judge.36 Here, there is no reason to disturb the exercise of
grams all containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu that discretion.37
allegedly found in his house are inadmissible as evidence against him
considering that they were seized after [a] search conducted by
Second Issue: Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses
virtue of Search Warrant No. 20 which is totally null and void as it
was issued for more than one offense, and were not found in ‘plain
view’ of the police officers who seized them. Neither could the Appellant, in essence, questions the credibility of the prosecution
accused be held liable for illegal possession of firearms and witnesses.38 Suffice it to state that the trial court’s assessment of
ammunition except for the (1) M14 rifle with Serial Number 1555225 their credibility is generally accorded respect, even finality. 39 After
and with magazine containing fifteen (15) live ammunition and two carefully examining the records and finding no material
more M14 rifle magazines with twenty (20) and twenty-one (21) live inconsistencies to support appellant’s claim, we cannot exempt this
ammunition respectively considering that the policemen who case from the general rule.40 Quite the contrary, the testimonies of
recovered or seized the other firearms and ammunition did not these witnesses positively showed that appellant had fired upon the
testify in court. The blue bag containing assorted coins cannot be approaching police elements, and that he had subsequently
returned to the accused Walpan Ladjaalam a.k.a. ‘Warpan’ because attempted to escape. SPO1 Amado Mirasol Jr.41testified thus:
according to the accused the blue bag and assorted coins do not
belong to him[;] instead the said assorted coins should be turned "PROSECUTOR NUVAL:
over to the National Treasury."30
Q: And, this trail is towards the front of the house of the accused? bedroom [o]n the second floor and he went immediately and jumped
from the window of his house x x x leading to the roof of the
neighbor’s house.
A: Yes.

x x x           x x x          x x x
Q: And it’s there where you were met by a volley of fire?

COURT:
A: Yes, Your Honor.

Reform. That is leading

COURT:

Q: What happened when you entered and he jumped to the roofing

Q: How far were you from the concrete fen[c]e when you were met
of the neighbor’s house?
by a volley of fire? ... You said you were fired upon?

A: Immediately, I myself, we immediately went downstairs and

A: More or less, five (5) meters.
asked the assistance of the members of the raiding team to arrest
Walfan Ladjaalam.
x x x           x x x          x x x
x x x           x x x          x x x
PROSECUTOR NUVAL:
PROSECUTOR NUVAL:
Q: Now, you said you were able to enter the house after the gate
was opened by your colleague Felipe Gaganting ... I will reform that
Q: Were you able to go down?
question.

A: Yes.
Q: Who opened the gate Mr. Witness?

Q: What happened when you were there?

A: SPO2 Felipe Gaganting, Efren Gregorio and Allan Marcos Obut.

A: We immediately went out and I asked the assistance of the

Q: And, at that time you were hiding at the concrete fence?
members of the raiding team and the investigator of the unit
especially SPO1 Cesar Rabuya. I was able to manage to arrest
A: Yes. Walfan Ladjaalam."42

Q: Now, when this gate was opened, you said you went inside the What happened thereafter was narrated by Senior Police Officer
house, right? Ricardo Lacastesantos,43 as follows:

A: Yes. "Q: What did you notice [o]n the second floor?

Q: What did you see inside the house? A: I went where the firing came from, so, I saw [an] M14 rifle and I
shouted from the outside, ‘do not fire at the second floor because
A: I, together with SPO1 Ricardo Lacastesantos, entered the main there [are] a lot of children here.’
door of the house of Walfran [sic] Ladjaalam at the ground floor. We
went inside the sala on the ground floor of his house[;] I saw two Q: Now, that rifle you said [was an] M14, where did you find this?
old woman.
A: At the sala set.
x x x           x x x          x x x
Q: This sala set where is this located?
PROSECUTOR NUVAL:
A: Located [on] the second floor of the house.
Q: Now, what did you do with these two old women?
Q: Is there a sala [o]n the second floor?
A: I did not mind those two old women because those two women
were sitting on the ground floor. I was concentrating on the second
A: Yes.
floor because Ladjaalam was firing towards our group so, I, together
with Ricardo Lacastesantos, went upstairs to the second floor of the
house. Q: Can you still identify that M14 rifle which you said you recovered
from the sale set?
Q: Were you able to go to the second floor of the house?
A: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: Why can you identify that?
Q: What happened when you were already on the second floor?
A: The Serial No. of M14 is 1555225 and I marked it with my initial.
A: While we were proceeding to the second floor, Walfan [sic]
Ladjaalam, noticed our presence and immediately went inside the
Q: Now, I have here M14 rifle[;] will you please tell us where is the A: On the magazines.
Serial No. of this?
Q: RJL?
A: 1555225 and I put my initial, RJL.
A: RJL."44
FISCAL NUVAL:
These were confirmed by the results of the paraffin tests conducted
This is already marked as our Exhibit ‘B-3’ with magazine, one on appellant and on the weapons seized during the raid. Both of his
magazine and seven round [ammunition]. hands as well as the weapons, particularly the M-14 which he had
used, were positive for gunpowder nitrate. Police Inspector Mercedes
Delfin-Diestro explained in open court:
Q: After recovering this, what did you do with this firearm?

"Q: Okay. Now, what was the result of your examination, Madam
A: When I recovered it I removed the bullets inside the chamber[.] I
Witness?
removed the magazine and I turned it over to the investigator.

A: The result of the examination [was] that both hands of the

Q: Where did you turn it over?
subject person, ha[d] presence of gun powder nitrates.

A: At the crime scene.

Q: What do you mean Madam Witness, what does that indicate?

Q: Now, that magazine, can you still identify this?

A: It indicates there is presence of powder nitrates.

A: Yes.
Q: Can we conclude that he fired a gun?

Q: Why?
A: I cannot conclude that he fired a gun because there are so many
circumstances [why] a person [would be] positive on his hands for
A: I put x x x markings. gun powder nitrates.

x x x           x x x          x x x Q: But, most likely, he fired a gun?

COURT: A: Yes.

So, a[si]de from the magazine attached to the M14 rifle you found x x x           x x x          x x x
six more magazines?
PROSECUTOR NUVAL:
A: Yes, so, all in all six magazines, three empty M16 rifle magazines
and three M14.
Q: What about, Madam Witness this Exhibit ‘B-3’, which is the M14
rifle. What did you do with this?
Q: The M16 magazines [were] empty?
A: SPO3 Abu did the swabbing both in the chamber and the barrel
A: Empty. wherein I observed there [were] black and traces of brown residue
on the bolt, chamber and in the barrel.
Q: How about the M14?
Q: And, that indicates Madam Witness...?
A: Found with [ammunition].
A: It indicates that the gun was fired.
x x x           x x x          x x x
Q: Recently?
Q: So, where are the three M16 magazines?
A: Because of the traces of brown residue, it could be possible that
A: In the corner. the gun was fired before the incident x x x.

Q: What did you do with [these] three magazines of M16? COURT:

A: I turned [them] over to the investigator. Q: There is also black residue?

Q: Can you identify them? A: Yes.

A: Yes, because of my initials[.] Q: What does it indicate?

Q: Where are your initials? A: It indicates that the firearm was recently fired.
Q: And, where is this swab used at the time of the swabbing of this Q Now, in paragraph[s] 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8; you stated in this
Exhibit? Counter-Affidavit which I quote: ‘that I was resting and sleeping
when I heard the gunshots and I noticed that the shots were
directed towards our house.. and I inspected and x x x we were
A: This one.
attacked by armed persons.. and I was apprehended by the persons
who attacked x x x our house’; [the] house you are referring to [in]
PROSECUTOR NUVAL: this paragraph, whose house [are you] referring to, is this [what]
you are referring to [as] your house or the house of your neighbors
May we ask that this be marked as Exhibit ‘B-3-A’. [from] which you said you heard gunshots?

COURT: A Our house.

Q: The firing there indicates that the gun was recently fired, during Q Now, in paragraph 6 of your Counter-Affidavit you stated and I
the incident? quote: ‘that [o]n that afternoon of September 24, 1997, I was at
home in my house Aplaya, Riohondo, Bo. Campo Muslim, my
companions in my house [were] the two old women and my
A: Yes. children, is this correct?

Q: And also before the incident it was fired because of the brown A They were not there.
residue?
Q Now, in that statement Mr. Witness, you said that you were at
A: Yes, Your Honor."45 (emphasis supplied) home in [your] house at Aplaya, Riohondo, Bo. Campo Muslim[;]
which is which now, you were in your house or you were in your
Duly proven from the foregoing were the two elements46 of the crime neighbors[‘] house at that time when you heard gunshots?
of illegal possession of firearms. Undoubtedly, the established fact
that appellant had fired an M-14 rifle upon the approaching police A I was in the house near my house.
officers clearly showed the existence of the firearm or weapon and
his possession thereof. Sufficing to satisfy the second element was
the prosecution’s Certification47 stating that he had not filed any Q So, your statement particularly paragraph 6 of your Counter-
application for license to possess a firearm, and that he had not Affidavit that you were at home in [your] house at Aplaya Riohondo
been given authority to carry any outside his residence. 48 Further, it Bo. Campo Muslim, is x x x not correct?
should be pointed out that his possession and use of an M-14 rifle
were obviously unauthorized because this weapon could not be A Yes, Sir. This is not correct."54
licensed in favor of, or carried by, a private individual.49
Crime and Punishment
Third Issue: Defense of Frame-up
The trial court convicted appellant of three crimes: (1) maintenance
From the convoluted arguments strewn before us by appellant, we of a drug den, (2) direct assault with attempted homicide, and (3)
gather that the main defense he raises is frame-up. He claims that illegal possession of firearms. We will discuss each of these.
the items seized from his house were "planted," and that the entire
Zamboanga police force was out to get him at all cost.
Maintenance of a Drug Den

This Court has invariably held that the defense of frame-up is

We agree with the trial court that appellant was guilty of
inherently weak, since it is easy to fabricate, but terribly difficult to
maintenance of a drug den, an offense for which he was correctly
disprove.50 Absent any showing of an improper motive on the part of
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. His guilt was clearly established by
the police officers,51 coupled with the presumption of regularity in the
the testimony of Prosecution Witness Rino Bartolome Locson, who
performance of their duty, such defense cannot be given much
himself had used the extension house of appellant as a drug den on
credence.52Indeed, after examining the records of this case, we
several occasions, including the time of the raid. The former’s
conclude that appellant has failed to substantiate his claim. On the
testimony was corroborated by all the raiding police officers who
contrary, his statements in his Counter Affidavit are inconsistent with
testified before the court. That appellant did not deny ownership of
his testimony during the trial.53 He testified thus:
the house and its extension lent credence to the prosecution’s story.

"Q Now, Mr. Witness, do you remember having executed an

Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide
Affidavit/ a Counter-Affidavit?

The trial court was also correct in convicting appellant of direct

A I could not remember.
assault55 with multiple counts of attempted homicide. It found that
"[t]he act of the accused [of] firing an M14 rifle [at] the policemen[,]
Q I have here a Counter-Affidavit and it was signed before this who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant x x x"
representation on the 8th day of December 1997[;] tell us whose constituted such complex crime.56
signature is this appearing above the typewritten name
We note that direct assault with the use of a weapon carries the
FISCAL NUVAL: penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods,
while attempted homicide carries the penalty of prision
Q . . . . Walpan Ladjaalam, whose signature is this? correccional.57 Hence, for the present complex crime, the penalty for
direct assault, which constitutes the "most serious crime," should be
imposed and applied in its maximum period.58
(Showing)
Illegal Possession of Firearms
A Yes, Sir. This is mine.
Aside from finding appellant guilty of direct assault with multiple provision. Furthermore, since there was no killing in this case, illegal
attempted homicide, the trial court convicted him also of the possession cannot be deemed as an aggravating circumstance under
separate offense of illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866, as the third paragraph of the provision. Based on these premises, the
amended by RA 8294, and sentenced him to 6 years of prision OSG concludes that the applicable law is not RA 8294, but PD 1866
correccional to 8 years of prision mayor. which, as worded prior the new law, penalizes simple illegal
possession of firearms even if another crime is committed at the
same time.60
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) disagrees, on the ground
that the trial court should not have applied the new law. It contends
that under the facts of the case, the applicable law should have been Applying a different interpretation, the trial court posits that
PD 1866, as worded prior to its amendment by RA 8294. appellant should be convicted of illegal possession of firearms, in
addition to direct assault with multiple attempted homicide. It did
not explain its ruling, however. Considering that it could not have
The trial court’s ruling and the OSG’s submission exemplify the legal
been ignorant of the proviso61 in the second paragraph, it seemed to
community’s difficulty in grappling with the changes brought about
have construed "no other crime" as referring only to homicide and
by RA 8294. Hence, before us now are opposing views on how to
murder, in both of which illegal possession of firearms is an
interpret Section 1 of the new law, which provides as follows:
aggravating circumstance. In other words, if a crime other than
murder or homicide is committed, a person may still be convicted of
"SECTION 1. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, illegal possession of firearms. In this case, the other crime
is hereby further amended to read as follows: committed was direct assault with multiple attempted homicide;
hence, the trial court found appellant guilty of illegal possession of
"Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or firearms.
Possession of Firearms or Ammunition Instruments Used or Intended
to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition.  -- The We cannot accept either of these interpretations because they ignore
penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of the plain language of the statute. A simple reading thereof shows
not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (₱15,000) shall be imposed that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime,
upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of
dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as rimfire firearms. Hence, if the "other crime" is murder or homicide, illegal
handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating
firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or circumstance, not a separate offense. Since direct assault with
intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case, appellant
ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was committed. can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms.

"The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the
Thirty thousand pesos (₱30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is accused.62 In this case, the plain meaning of RA 8294’s simple
classified as high powered firearm which includes those with bores language is most favorable to herein appellant. Verily, no other
bigger in diameter than .30 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber . interpretation is justified, for the language of the new law
40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but considered demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the
powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 centerfire magnum and accused.63 Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of two
other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of separate offenses of illegal possession of firearms and direct assault
two or three: Provided, however, That no other crime was with attempted homicide. Moreover, since the crime committed was
committed by the person arrested. direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of
firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance.
"If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an We reject the OSG’s contention that PD 1866, as worded prior to its
aggravating circumstance. amendment by RA 8294, should be applied in this
case.1âwphi1 When the crime was committed on September 24,
"If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of or incident to, or 1997, the original language of PD 1866 had already been expressly
in connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or superseded by RA 8294 which took effect on July 6, 1997.64 In other
attempted coup d’etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an words, no longer in existence was the earlier provision of PD 1866,
element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or which justified a conviction for illegal possession of firearms separate
attempted coup d’etat. from any other crime. It was replaced by RA 8294 which, among
other amendments to PD 1866, contained the specific proviso that
"no other crime was committed."
"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 Furthermore, the OSG’s reliance on People v. Jayson65 is misplaced.
allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation True, this Court sustained the conviction of appellant for illegal
or entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of possession of firearms, although he had also committed homicide.
violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or We explained, however, that "the criminal case for homicide [was]
knowingly allow any of them to use unlicensed firearms or firearms not before us for consideration."
without any legal authority to be carried outside of their residence in
the course of their employment. Just as unacceptable is the interpretation of the trial court. We find
no justification for limiting the proviso in the second paragraph to
"The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person murder and homicide. The law is clear: the accused can be convicted
who shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that "no other
legal authority therefor." crime was committed by the person arrested." If the intention of the
law in the second paragraph were to refer only to homicide and
murder, it should have expressly said so, as it did in the third
Citing People v. Jayson,59 the OSG argues that the foregoing paragraph. Verily, where the law does not distinguish, neither should
provision does not cover the specific facts of this case. Since another we.
crime -- direct assault with multiple unlawful homicide -- was
committed, appellant cannot be convicted of simple illegal
possession of firearms under the second paragraph of the aforecited
The Court is aware that this ruling effectively exonerates appellant of 11 
Assisted by counsel de parte, Atty. Jose E. Fernandez.
illegal possession of an M-14 rifle, an offense which normally carries
a penalty heavier than that for direct assault. While the penalty for 12 
Notice of Appeal was filed on September 25, 1998. This
the first is prision mayor, for the second it is only prision
case was deemed submitted for resolution after the
correccional. Indeed, the accused may evade conviction for illegal
Court’s receipt of the Brief for the Appellee on May 19,
possession of firearms by using such weapons in committing an even
2000. The filing of a reply brief was deemed waived, as
lighter offense,66 like alarm and scandal67 or slight physical
none was submitted within the reglementary period.
injuries,68 both of which are punishable by arresto menor.69 This
consequence, however, necessarily arises from the language of RA
13 
8294, whose wisdom is not subject to the Court’s review. Any Signed by Solicitor General Ricardo P. Galvez, Assistant
perception that the result reached here appears unwise should be Solicitor General Carlos N. Ortega and Associate Solicitor
addressed to Congress. Indeed, the Court has no discretion to give Rico Sebastian D. Liwanag.
statutes a new meaning detached from the manifest intendment and
language of the legislature. Our task is constitutionally confined only 14 
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 9-16; rollo, pp. 247-254.
to applying the law and jurisprudence70 to the proven facts, and we
have done so in this case.
Appellant’s Brief, p. 5; rollo, p. 149. This Brief was
15 

signed by Atty. Jose E. Fernandez.

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that appellant is found guilty only of two
offenses: (1) direct assault and multiple attempted homicide with the
16 
Decision, pp. 23-32; rollo, pp. 51-60.
use of a weapon, for which he is sentenced to 2 years and 4 months
to 6 years of prision correccional; and (2) maintaining a drug den, 17 
These are: 1) violation of § 16, Article III of RA 6495,
for which he was correctly sentenced by the trial court to reclusion otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972; 2)
perpetua. Costs against appellant. violation of PD 1866 penalizing illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Congress of the
Philippines for a possible review, at its sound discretion, of RA 8294. 18 
It provides:

SO ORDERED. "SEC. 3. Requisite for issuing search warrant. --

A search warrant shall not issue but upon
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur. probable cause in connection with one specific
offense to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the things to be
seized."
Footnotes

1 
19 
Decision, pp. 32-33; rollo, pp. 60-61.
Written by Judge Jesus C. Carbon Jr.

These are, inter alia, SPO1 Amado Mirasol Jr., SPO1

20 
2 
Rollo, pp. 10-15.
Ricardo Lacastesantos, PO3 Enrique Rivera and PO3
Renato Dela Peña.
3 
The appellant was charged together with his wife Nur-In
Ladjaalam and one Ahmad Sailabbi. Charges against the
Decision, pp. 42-43; rollo, pp. 70-71. Both appellant and
21 
latter were later dropped.
the firearms seized tested positive for gunpowder nitrates.
4 
Also spelled "Riohondo." 22 
The trial court quoted the same thus:
5 
Rollo, p. 10.
"[O]n the afternoon of September 24, 1998, I
was at home in my house at Aplaya, Rio Hondo,
6 
Appellant was charged here together with Nur-In Barangay Campo Muslim xxx (and) I was resting
Ladjaalam and Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajaraini. The charge and sleeping when I heard the sound of gun
against the latter two was subsequently dismissed. reports, which awakened me. Then I noticed
that the shots were directed towards our house,
7 
Rollo, p. 12. hence I suspected that we were under attack by
armed persons. I tried to escape and jumped
outside, but I was apprehended by the persons
8 
In this Information, charged were appellant together with who attacked our house, before I learned they
one PO2 Nurhakim T. Hadjula and Ahmad were police officers." (Decision p. 35; rollo, p.
Sailabbi y  Hajaraini. Charges against Sailabbi were later 63.)
dropped; Hadjula still remains at large.
23 
Decision, pp. 37-38; rollo, pp. 63-64.
9 
Rollo, pp. 14-15.
24 
Seen by SPO1 Lacastesantos lying on top of a sofa on
10 
No copy of the fourth Information was attached to the the second story of appellant’s house when he pursued
records. In any event, the trial court acquitted him of this appellant.
charge.
25 
Seen at a corner on the same floor.
26 
Decision, p. 38; rollo, p. 66. to possess or carry the same outside his
residence." (footnote omitted)
27 
Ibid.
See also People v.  Castillo, GR No. 131592-93,
February 15, 2000; People v.  Lazaro, GR No.
28 
Ibid. p. 51; rollo, p. 79.
112090, October 26, 1999; People v.  Narvasa,
298 SCRA 637, November 16, 1998.
29 
Ibid., pp. 48-50; pp. 76-78.
47 
Signed by Police Senior Inspector Ruperto Rugay Regis
30 
Ibid., pp. 53-54; pp. 81-82. Jr.

31 
Appellant’s Brief, p. 1; rollo, p. 145. People v.  Lazaro, supra., citing several cases. See also
48 

People v.  Narvasa, supra.; People v.  Molina, supra.;

32 
Appellant’s Brief, p. 19; rollo, 163. People v.  Villanueva, 275 SCRA 489, July 15, 1997.

As shown by the pertinent portions quoted below. See

33 
49 
People v.  Molina, supra.
People v.  Baniel, 275 SCRA 472, July 15, 1997.
See People v.  Barita et al., GR No. 123541, February 8,
50 

34 
TSN, March 4, 1998, pp. 37-38. 2000; Dizon v.  CA, 311 SCRA 1, July 22, 1999.

51 
35 
See People v.  Baniel, supra. In fact, appellant admits that he did not have any
misunderstanding with the arresting officers. Neither could
he think of any reason why they would file false charges
36 
Paras, Rules of Court Annotated, 2nd ed., p. 78, citing against him. (TSN, May 4, 1998, p. 42)
Graham on Evidence. See  also  Appellee’s Brief, pp. 21-22.
52 
See People v. Dizon, supra.
37 
See People v.  Moreno, 83 Phil. 286, April 7, 1949.
53 
TSN, May 4, 1998, pp. 37-39.
38 
Appellant’s first assignment of error is herein taken up as
the second issue. 54 
Ibid.

See People v.  Elamparo, GR No. 121572, March 31,

39 
55 
2000; People v.  Cupino, et al., GR No. 125688, March 31, Article 148 of the RPC reads:
2000; People v.  Estorco, GR No. 111941, April 27, 2000;
People v.  Sultan, GR No. 132470, April 27, 2000; "ART. 148. Direct assaults. -- Any person or
People v.  Mendoza, GR No. 128890, May 31, 2000; persons who, without public uprising, shall
People v.  Geral, GR No. 122283, June 15, 2000; employ force or intimidation for the attainment
Peoplev.  Rios, GR No. 132632, June 19, 2000; of any of the purposes enumerated in defining
People v.  Molina, infra. the crimes of rebellion and sedition, or shall
attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or
40 
People v.  Narvasa, 298 SCRA 637, November 16, 1998. resist any person in authority or any of his
agents, while engaged in the performance of
official duties, or on occasion of such
41 
The witness is a member of the team that went to performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision
Ladjaalam’s house on September 24, 1997. He was tasked correccional in its medium and maximum
to bring the barangay captain to appellant’s house to serve periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000
as a witness to the search. pesos, when the assault is committed with a
weapon or when the offender is a public officer
42 
TSN, March 4, 1998, pp. 18-23. or employee, or when the offender lays hands
upon a person in authority. xxx."
43 
Also a member or the raiding team. Lacastesantos, 56 
together with SPO1 Mirasol, went inside the house. When Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) reads:
appellant tried to escape, Mirasol pursued him;
Lacastesantos proceeded to the second floor. "ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. -- When a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less
44 
TSN, March 5, 1998, pp. 23-24, 28-29. grave felonies, or when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other, the
45 
penalty for the most serious crime shall be
TSN, March 3, 1998, pp. 10-11, 19-20. imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period." (emphasis ours)
In the en banc case of People v. Molina (292 SCRA 742,
46 

777, July 22, 1998), we said: 57 

Article 249; cf. 51, RPC.

"In crimes involving illegal possession of 58 

Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides
firearms, the prosecution has the burden of that "the court shall sentence the accused to an
proving the elements thereof: (1) the existence indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall
of the subject firearm; and (2) the fact that the be that which, in view of the attending circumstances,
accused, who owned or possessed the firearm, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said
did not have the corresponding license or permit
Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the range G.R. No. 170562 - ANGEL CELINO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU
of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code CITY, HON. DELANO F. VILLARUZ, Presiding Judge, Branch 16,
for the offense." An authority on criminal law writes that Regional Trial Court, Capiz, Roxas City, and PEOPLE OF THE
"when the accused is guilty of a complex crime, the PHILIPPINES
penalty immediately lower is the next below the penalty
provided for the gravest crime." (Reyes, The Revised
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Penal Code, Book One, 1981 ed., p. 769.) Since direct
assault is punishable with prision correccional in its
medium and maximum period, the penalty next lower in SECOND DIVISION
degree is arresto mayor (maximum) to prision
correccional (minimum). Accordingly, the indeterminate [G.R. NO. 170562 : June 29, 2007]
penalty for direct assault with multiple attempted homicide
is 2 years and 4 months to 6 years of prision correccional.

59 
282 SCRA 166, 176-177, November 18, 1997.
ANGEL CELINO, SR., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY,
HON. DELANO F. VILLARUZ, Presiding Judge, Branch 16, Regional
People v.  Quijada, 259 SCRA 191, July 24, 1996;
60 
Trial Court, Capiz, Roxas City, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
People v.  Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601, February 26, 1990. Respondents.

61 
"That no other crime was committed by the person
arrested."

DECISION
See People v. Atop, 286 SCRA 157, February 10, 1998;
62 

People v. Deleverio, 289 SCA 547, April 24, 1998.

CARPIO MORALES, J.:
See Tanada v. Yulo, 61 Phil. 515, May 31, 1935;
63 

Regalado v. Yulo, 61 Phil. 173, February 15, 1935. This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assails
the Court of Appeals' Decision dated April 18, 20051 affirming the
trial court's denial of petitioner Angel Celino, Sr.'s Motion to Quash;
64 
People v. Jayson, supra. and Resolution dated September 26, 20052 denying petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration of the said Decision.
65 
Supra at p. 177, per Mendoza, J.
The following facts are not disputed:
66 
Offenses under the Revised Penal Code which carry a
penalty lighter than that for illegal possession of a high- Two separate informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court
powered firearm include (1) indirect assault (Article 149), of Roxas City charging petitioner with violation of Section 2(a) of
(2) tumults and other disturbances (Article 153), (3) COMELEC Resolution No. 6446 (gun ban),3 and Section 1, Paragraph
discharge of firearms (Article 254), (4) light threats (Article 2 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 82944 (illegal possession of firearm), as
285), and (5) light coercion (Article 287). follows:

67 
Article 155 (1) of the Revised Penal code provides the Criminal Case No. C-137-04
penalty of arresto menor  or fine not exceeding 200 pesos
upon "[a]ny person who within any town or public place,
shall discharge any firearm, rocket, firecracker or other That on or about the 12th day of May, 2004, in the City of Roxas,
explosive calculated to cause alarm or danger." Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly
carry outside of his residence an armalite rifle colt M16 with serial
Article 266 (1) imposes the penalty of arresto
68 
number 3210606 with two (2) long magazines each loaded with
menor "when an offender has inflicted physical injuries thirty (30) live ammunitions of the same caliber during the election
which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from period - December 15, 2005 to June 9, 2004 - without first having
one to nine days, or shall require medical attention during obtained the proper authority in writing from the Commission on
the same period." For example, when a person hits the Elections, Manila, Philippines.
head of another with the butt of an unlicensed M-14 rifle,
thereby incapacitating the latter for one to nine days, the
accused may be charged only with slight physical injuries, CONTRARY TO LAW.5
not illegal possession of firearms.
Criminal Case No. C-138-04
69 
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration
of arresto menor  is one to thirty days. That on or about the 12th day of May, 2004, in the City of Roxas,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
70 
That penal laws should be liberally interpreted in favor of said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly
the accused. have in his possession and control one (1) armalite rifle colt M16
with serial number 3210606 with two (2) long magazines each
loaded with thirty (30) live ammunitions of the same caliber without
first having obtained the proper license or necessary permit to
possess the said firearm.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6 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
Upon arraignment in Criminal Case No. C-138-04, petitioner pleaded
burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no other crime was
not guilty to the gun ban violation charge.7
committed by the person arrested.

Prior to his arraignment in Criminal Case No. C-137-04, petitioner

"If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
filed a Motion to Quash8 contending that he "cannot be prosecuted
firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
for illegal possession of firearms x x x if he was also charged of
aggravating circumstance.
having committed another crime of [sic] violating the Comelec gun
ban under the same set of facts x x x."9
"If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of or incident to, or
in connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or
By Order of July 29, 2004,10 the trial court denied the Motion to
attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
Quash on the basis of this Court's11 affirmation in Margarejo v. Hon.
element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or
Escoses12 of therein respondent judge's denial of a similar motion to
attempted coup d'etat.
quash on the ground that "the other offense charged x x x is not one
of those enumerated under R.A. 8294 x x x." 13 Petitioner's Motion
for Reconsideration was likewise denied by September 22, 2004 xxx
Resolution,14 hence, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari15 before
the Court of Appeals.
(Underscoring supplied)cralawlibrary

By Decision dated April 18, 2005,16 the appellate court affirmed the
The crux of the controversy lies in the interpretation of the
trial court's denial of the Motion to Quash. Petitioner's May 9, 2005
underscored proviso. Petitioner, citing Agote v. Lorenzo,23 People v.
Motion for Reconsideration17 having been denied by Resolution of
Ladjaalam,24 and other similar cases,25 contends that the mere
September 26, 2005,18 petitioner filed the present petition.
filing of an information for gun ban violation against him necessarily
bars his prosecution for illegal possession of firearm. The Solicitor
The petition fails. General contends otherwise on the basis of Margarejo v. Hon.
Escoses 26 and People v. Valdez.27
Petitioner's remedy to challenge the appellate court's decision and
resolution was to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule In Agote,28 this Court affirmed the accused's conviction for gun ban
45 on or before October 20, 2005 or 15 days after he received a violation but exonerated him of the illegal possession of firearm
copy of the appellate court's resolution on October 5, 200519 charge because it "cannot but set aside petitioner's conviction in
denying his motion for reconsideration. Instead, petitioner chose to Criminal Case No. 96-149820 for illegal possession of firearm since
file the present petition under Rule 65 only on December 2, 2005,20 another crime was committed at the same time, i.e., violation of
a good 58 days after he received the said resolution. COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 or the Gun Ban."29 Agote is based on
Ladjaalam30 where this Court held:
Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for lost appeal. Certiorari
lies only when there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and x x x A simple reading [of RA 8294] shows that if an unlicensed
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Why the question firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no
being raised by petitioner, i.e., whether the appellate court separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if
committed grave abuse of discretion, could not have been raised on the "other crime" is murder or homicide, illegal possession of
appeal, no reason therefor has been advanced.21 firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a
separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple attempted
homicide was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be
While this Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the
held liable for illegal possession of firearms.
Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, has the discretion to
treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45,
especially if filed within the reglementary period under said Rule, it Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused.
finds nothing in the present case to warrant a liberal application of In this case, the plain meaning of RA 8294's simple language is most
the Rules, no justification having been proffered, as just stated, why favorable to herein appellant. Verily, no other interpretation is
the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period,22 especially justified, for the language of the new law demonstrates the
considering that it is substantially just a replication of the petition legislative intent to favor the accused. Accordingly, appellant cannot
earlier filed before the appellate court. be convicted of two separate offenses of illegal possession of
firearms and direct assault with attempted homicide. x x x
Technicality aside, the petition fails just the same.
xxx
The relevant provision of R.A. 8294 reads:
x x x The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal
possession of firearms, provided that "no other crime was committed
SECTION 1. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended,
by the person arrested." If the intention of the law in the second
is hereby further amended to read as follows:
paragraph were to refer only to homicide and murder, it should have
expressly said so, as it did in the third paragraph. Verily, where the
"SECTION 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or law does not distinguish, neither should we.31
Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or
Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition.
The law is indeed clear. The accused can be convicted of illegal
- x x x.
possession of firearms, provided no other crime was committed by
the person arrested. The word "committed" taken in its ordinary
"The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of sense, and in light of the Constitutional presumption of innocence,32
Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is necessarily implies a prior determination of guilt by final conviction
classified as high powered firearm which includes those with bores resulting from successful prosecution or voluntary admission.33
bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber .
Petitioner's reliance on Agote, Ladjaalam, Evangelista, Garcia, stiffer penalties for certain violations thereof and for relevant
Pangilinan, Almeida, and Bernal is, therefore, misplaced. In each one purposes." (Took effect July 6, 1997)
of these cases, the accused were exonerated of illegal possession of
firearms because of their commission, as shown by their conviction,
5 CA rollo at 24. No copy found in RTC records.
of some other crime.34 In the present case, however, petitioner has
only been accused of committing a violation of the COMELEC gun
ban. As accusation is not synonymous with guilt, there is yet no 6 Records, p. 1.
showing that petitioner did in fact commit the other crime
charged.35 Consequently, the proviso does not yet apply. 7 Rollo, p. 8.

More applicable is Margarejo36 where, as stated earlier, this Court 8 Records, pp. 25-31.
affirmed the denial of a motion to quash an information for illegal
possession of firearm on the ground that "the other offense charged
[i.e., violation of gun ban] x x x is not one of those enumerated 9 Id. at 27.
under R.A. 8294 x x x."37 in consonance with the earlier
pronouncement in Valdez38 that "all pending cases involving illegal 10 Id. at 48-52.
possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted and tried if
no other crimes expressly indicated in Republic Act No. 8294 are
involved x x x."39 11 En Banc.

In sum, when the other offense involved is one of those enumerated 12 417 Phil. 506 (2001).
under R.A. 8294, any information for illegal possession of firearm
should be quashed because the illegal possession of firearm would 13 Id. at 512.
have to be tried together with such other offense, either considered
as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide,40 or
absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or 14 Records, p. 91.
attempted coup d etat.41 Conversely, when the other offense
involved is not one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, then the 15 CA rollo, pp. 2-60.
separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to be
prosecuted.
16 Id. at 99-103. Penned by Justice Arsenio J. Magpale with the
concurrence of Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Enrico A. Lanzanas.
Finally, as a general rule, the remedy of an accused from the denial
of his motion to quash is for him to go to trial on the merits, and if
17 Id. at 108-117.
an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner
authorized by law.42 Although the special civil action for certiorari
may be availed of in case there is a grave abuse of discretion,43 the 18 Id. at 132. Penned by Justice Arsenio J. Magpale with the
appellate court correctly dismissed the petition as that vitiating error concurrence of Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Enrico A. Lanzanas.
is not attendant in the present case.
19 Id. at 131.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
20 Rollo, p. 128.
SO ORDERED.
21 Heirs of Griño v. Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No.
165073, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 329, 341 citing Republic v. Court
of Appeals, 379 Phil. 92, 97 (2000).
Endnotes:
22 Id. at 342, citing The President, Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151280, June 10, 2004,
* On Official Leave.
431 SCRA 682, 688.

** Acting Chairperson.
23 G.R. No. 142675, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 60.

1 CA rollo at 99-103.
24 395 Phil. 1 (2000).

2 Id. at 149.
25 Evangelista v. Sistoza, 414 Phil. 874 (2001); People v. Garcia, 424
Phil. 158 (2002); People v. Bernal, 437 Phil. 11 (2002); People v.
3 Rules and Regulations on: (A) Bearing, Carrying or Transporting Pangilinan, 443 Phil. 198 (2003); and People v. Almeida, 463 Phil.
Firearms or Other Deadly Weapons; (B) Security Personnel or 637 (2003).
Bodyguards; (C) Bearing Arms By Any Member of Security or Police
Organization of Government Agencies and Other Similar
26 Supra note 12.
Organization; (D) Organization or Maintenance of Reaction Forces
During the Election Period in Connection with the May 10, 2004,
Synchronized National and Local Elections. 27 364 Phil. 259 (1999).

4 An Act Amending the Provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866, 28 Supra note 23.
as Amended, entitled "Codifying the laws on illegal/unlawful
possession, manufacture, dealing in, acquisition or distribution of 29 Id. at 75.
firearms, ammunitions, or explosives or instruments used in the
manufacture of firearms, ammunitions or explosives and imposing
30 Supra note 24.

31 Id. at 35-36.

32 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14, par. (2).

33 Vide People v. Concepcion, 55 Phil. 485, 491 (1930), where this

Court held that "inasmuch as every defendant is presumed innocent
until convicted by a competent court after due process of law of the
crime with which he is charged, [the accused] is still innocent in the
eyes of the law, notwithstanding the filing of the information against
him for the aforesaid crime."

34 Maintenance of drug den and direct assault with attempted

homicide in Ladjaalam; robbery in Evangelista; kidnapping for
ransom with serious illegal detention in Garcia and in Pangilinan;
murder and gun ban violation in Bernal; illegal possession of drugs in
Almeida; and gun ban violation in Agote.

35 On the contrary, petitioner even claimed, through his "not guilty"

plea in Criminal Case No. C-137-04 that he did not commit a
violation of the COMELEC Gun Ban. (Rollo, p. 8)

36 Supra note 12.

37 Supra note 13.

38 Supra note 27.

39 Id. at 279.

40 R.A. No. 8294, Sec. 1.

41 Ibid.

42 Soriano v. Casanova, G.R. No. 163400, March 31, 2006, 486

SCRA 431, 439.

43 Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, 324 Phil. 151, 176 (1996).