1. Jacaban v. People, G.R. No.

184355, March 23, 2015

In the case of Jacaban v. People, Arnulfo Jacaban is found guilty of

illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions without the necessary
license, despite claiming not to be the owner of the house where they
were found, leading to a modified penalty of imprisonment and a fine.

Facts
 Petitioner Arnulfo Jacaban was charged with illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition without the necessary license.
 The case originated from an Information filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 13, Cebu City.
 On July 16, 1999, a search warrant was implemented by the police at
Jacaban's residence, where various firearms and ammunition were
found.
 The RTC found Jacaban guilty of the crime charged.
 Jacaban appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA), which
affirmed the RTC's decision.

Issue

Whether or not accused is liable for the crime of illegal possession of

fire arms and ammunition?

Held

 The court ruled that ownership of the house is not an essential element
of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
 Possession, both actual physical possession and constructive
possession, is what the law requires.
 The prosecution established that Jacaban had constructive possession
of the firearms and ammunition, as he had control and management
over them.
 Jacaban's lack of license to possess the firearms and ammunition was
confirmed by the testimony of a police officer.

Section 1 of PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, provides:

Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession

of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in
the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. - ….....

The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of illegal possession
of firearms and ammunitions are: (1) the existence of subject firearm; and,
(2) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not
have the corresponding license for it. The unvarying rule is that ownership is
not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
What the law requires is merely possession, which includes not only actual
physical possession, but also constructive possession or the subjection of the
thing to one’s control and management.

Once the prosecution evidence indubitably points to possession without the

requisite authority or license, coupled with animus possidendi or intent to
possess on the part of the accused, conviction for violation of the said law
must follow. Animus possidendi is a state of mind, the presence or
determination of which is largely dependent on attendant events in each
case. It may be inferred from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the
accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances.

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.

Anent petitioner's argument that the house where the firearm was found was
not owned by him is not persuasive.

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.

2. PEOPLE v. RESTITUTO CARANDANG, GR No. 175926, 2011-07-06

Facts:
Reinforcements came at around 4:30 p.m. upon the arrival of P/Sr. Insp.
Calaro, Chief Operations Officer of the La Loma Police Station 1, and P/Supt.
Roxas, the Deputy Station Commander of Police Station 1 at the time of the
incident. [9] SPO1
Montecalvo was brought to the Chinese General Hospital. Milan stepped out
of the house and was also brought to a hospital, [10] but Carandang and
Chua remained holed up inside the house for several hours. There was a
lengthy negotiation for the... surrender of Carandang and Chua, during which
they requested for the presence of a certain Colonel Reyes and media man
Ramon Tulfo. [11] It was around 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight when
Carandang and Chua surrendered. [12]
SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo were found dead inside the house, their bodies
slumped on the floor with broken legs and gunshot and grenade shrapnel
wounds. [13]
Dr. Winston Tan, Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory, conducted the post-mortem examination of the bodies of
SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo. He found that the gunshot wounds of Red and
Alonzo were the cause of their deaths... the trial court rendered its Decision
[21] finding Carandang, Milan and Chua guilty of two counts of murder and
one count of frustrated murder
Likewise, finding the accused Restituto Carandang, Henry Milan and Jackman
Chua guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated murder,
described and penalized under Article 249 in relation to Article 6, paragraph
2, having acted in conspiracy with each other... he Court of Appeals rendered
the assailed Decision modifying the Decision of the trial court
Issues:
The court a quo erred in holding that there was conspiracy among the
appellants in the case at bar
Ruling:
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Evidence
need not establish the actual agreement among the conspirators showing a
preconceived plan or motive for the commission of the crime. Proof of
concerted action before, during and after the crime, which demonstrates
their unity of design and objective, is sufficient. When conspiracy is
established, the act of one is the act of all regardless of the degree of
participation of each.

The trial court had ruled that Carandang, Milan and Chua acted in conspiracy
in the commission of the crimes charged. Thus, despite the established fact
that it was Carandang who fired the gun which hit SPO2 Red, PO2 Alonzo and
SPO1 Montecalvo, all three accused were held criminally responsible.
Therefore, the trial court explained that Carandang, Milan and Chua's
actuations showed that they acted in concert against the police officers.

In the case at bar, the conclusion that Milan and Chua conspired with
Carandang was established by their acts (1) before Carandang shot the
victims (Milan's closing the door when the police officers introduced
themselves, allowing Carandang to wait in ambush), and (2) after the
shooting (Chua's directive to Milan to attack SPO1 Montecalvo and Milan's
following such instruction).
Neither can the rapid turn of events be considered to negate a finding of
conspiracy. Unlike evident premeditation, there is no requirement for
conspiracy to exist that there be a sufficient period of time to elapse to
afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection. Instead, conspiracy
arises on the very moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to
commit the subject felony.

Furthermore, we have time and again ruled that factual findings of the trial
court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on
this Court when supported by the evidence on record. 45 It was the trial court
that was able to observe the demeanors of the witnesses, and is
consequently in a better position to determine which of the witnesses are
telling the truth. Thus, this Court, as a general rule, would not review the
factual findings of the courts a quo, except in certain instances such as
when:

(1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures;

(2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) there is grave abuse of discretion;
(4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are
based;
(7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of
evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to
the findings of the trial court;
(9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and
undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion;
(10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case;
and
(11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties

3. People vs. Dulin y Narag G.R. No. 171284 Jun 29, 2015

Alfredo Dulin appeals his conviction for the murder of Francisco

Batulan, claiming self-defense and incomplete self-defense as
justifying circumstances, but the court finds that there was no self-
defense and incomplete self-defense was not proved, resulting in a
modification of the penalty to homicide and the awarding of damages
to the victim's heirs.

Facts:
 Alfredo Dulin y Narag was initially convicted for the murder of
Francisco Batulan.
 The incident took place on August 22, 1990, in Tuguegarao, Cagayan.
 The prosecution, supported by four witnesses, established that Dulin
stabbed Batulan multiple times.
 Batulan succumbed to his injuries on August 24, 1990.
 The RTC of Tuguegarao, Branch 3, convicted Dulin of murder on
December 29, 1997.
 The RTC considered the privileged mitigating circumstance of
incomplete self-defense, sentencing Dulin to reclusion temporal in its
maximum period.
 On appeal, the CA modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua,
affirming the conviction but adjusting the civil liabilities awarded to the
victim's heirs.
 Dulin appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing self-defense and
questioning the appreciation of treachery in the killing of Batulan.

issues:
 1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not recognizing the
justifying circumstance of self-defense despite Dulin’s claims.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals incorrectly disregarded incomplete
self-defense as a privileged mitigating circumstance.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals improperly appreciated the
qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing.

Court’s Decision:

 The Supreme Court partially granted Dulin’s appeal. It held:

1. Self-Defense

The Court found no unlawful aggression from Batulan to justify

self-defense. Since Dulin had disarmed Batulan before the fatal
stabbing and Batulan no longer posed an imminent threat, the
Court concluded that Dulin’s act was not self-defense but
retaliation.

2. Incomplete Self-Defense

The Court ruled that incomplete self-defense was not proven,

emphasizing that unlawful aggression, an essential element, was
absent. Dulin’s actions were determined to be aggressive rather
than defensive.

3. Treachery

The Court found the CA’s and RTC’s appreciation of treachery as

incorrect. The circumstances indicated that Batulan was aware of
and engaged in the struggle for the weapon, negating the
surprise or defenselessness essential for treachery.
Consequently, Dulin was adjudged liable only for homicide.

 The Court modified Dulin’s penalty to an indeterminate sentence

reflective of his conviction for homicide and adjusted the damages
awarded to the heirs of Batulan.

Doctrine:

 Self-Defense: Unlawful aggression is the sine qua non for self-defense.

Absent unlawful aggression, claims of self-defense or incomplete self-
defense cannot stand.
  Treachery: For treachery to be appreciated, the method of execution
must give the victim no opportunity for defense or retaliation and must
be deliberately chosen by the offender.

 Essential Elements of Self-Defense: (1) Unlawful aggression (2)

Reasonable necessity of means used to prevent or repel it (3) Lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

 Treachery (Art. 14, Par. 16, RPC): Requires (a) the employment of
means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or to retalitate, and (b) the deliberate or conscious
adoption of such means by the assailant.

Historical Background:

 This case illustrates the application of the principles of self-defense

and treachery in a factual matrix where initial aggression by the victim
did not sustain a continued threat justifying lethal retaliation. It
underscores the judiciary’s diligence in distinguishing between
retaliation and self-defense and in characterizing the nature of the
attack (treacherous or otherwise) to accurately determine liability.

4. People vs. LOPEZ. G.R. No. 181441 Nov 14, 2008

Appellant Larry Lopez is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

violating Sections 5 and 11 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, with the court
affirming the penalties imposed by the trial court.

Facts:

 Larry Lopez was charged with violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic

Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
 The incident occurred on November 1, 2003, in Baler, Aurora.
 A barangay official reported to the Baler Police Station that Lopez was
selling illegal drugs.
 A buy-bust operation was planned, with PO1 Romeo Miranda acting as
the poseur-buyer.
 The operation took place in front of Ditha's Hardware, where Lopez
sold 0.06 grams of shabu to the poseur-buyer in exchange for marked
money.
  Lopez was arrested, and a search revealed 6.20 grams of marijuana
hidden in Marlboro cigarette packs.
 Lopez denied the charges, claiming he was framed by the police.
 He stated that he was forcibly pulled down, handcuffed, and frisked by
men in civilian clothes who identified themselves as policemen.
 The Regional Trial Court found Lopez guilty beyond reasonable doubt
and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000 for the
sale of shabu, and fourteen years of imprisonment and a fine of
P300,000 for possession of marijuana.
 The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on September
25, 2007.
 Lopez appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing inconsistencies in the
prosecution's evidence and the illegality of the warrantless search and
seizure.

Issue:
The sole issue in this case is whether appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of (1) Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for
the sale of 0.06 gram of shabu; and (2) Section 11, Article II of RA 9165
for the possession of 6.20 grams of dried marijuana leaves.

Court Decision:

The Court sustains the finding of the lower courts that the prosecution
sufficiently established appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution
proved that a consummated sale of shabu transpired between the buy-
bust team which included the confidential agent, on one hand, and the
appellant on the other. The prosecution also established that the police
officers recovered marijuana after searching appellant's body. The
subject drugs were also proven to be methylamphetamine
hydrochloride and marijuana, as evidenced by Field Test Report No.
APPO-SOG-1101-2003-01 and the confirmatory tests subsequently
conducted by Forensic Chemical Officer.

In the present case, appellant gravely failed to show that the trial court
overlooked or misapprehended any fact or circumstance of weight and
substance to warrant a deviation from this rule.

First, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of PO1 Miranda refer to

trivial or minor matters, which do not impair the essential integrity of the
prosecution's evidence as a whole or reflect on the witness'
honesty.8 Inconsistencies on the existence of a pre-arranged signal and the
markings on the buy-bust money pertain to peripheral matters and do not
refer to the actual buy-bust operation itself - that crucial moment when the
appellant was caught selling shabu - which might warrant a reversal of
appellant's conviction. Further, the Court sustains the trial court in giving
credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses because the trial
court is in a better position to evaluate the witnesses' deportment during the
trial. Besides, the employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is
not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. Also, the non-presentation of the
buy-bust money is not fatal to the successful prosecution of a drug case.

Second, appellant did not substantiate his defense of frame-up. He did not
present evidence that the prosecution witnesses had motive to falsely
charge him. Neither did appellant prove that the police officers did not
perform their duties regularly. As the Court of Appeals held, the frame-up
theory was a mere afterthought.

Third, Section 12 of Rule 126 expressly provides that "[a] person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be
used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant." In
this case, the arresting officers were justified in arresting appellant as he had
just committed a crime when he sold shabu to the confidential agent. A buy-
bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted
to be a valid means of arresting drug offenders. 14 Considering the legality of
appellant's warrantless arrest, the subsequent warrantless search resulting
in the recovery of marijuana found in appellant's body is also valid.

Considering that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of

Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the
trial court's imposition of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000 in Criminal
Case No. 3188 for the illegal sale of shabu.
While appellant is also guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section
11, Article II of RA 9165, the Court modifies the penalty imposed in Criminal
Case No. 3189 for illegal possession of marijuana.

In People v. Mateo, the Court held that the period of imprisonment imposed
on the accused should not be a straight penalty, but should be an
indeterminate penalty. Thus, the trial court erred in imposing the straight
penalty of imprisonment of fourteen (14) years.

Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that when the offense
is punished by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, "the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not
be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same." Accordingly, the
penalty that should be imposed on appellant is imprisonment ranging from
twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as
maximum. The Court affirms the P300,000 fine imposed by the trial court.