GR 110569; (December, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110569 December 9, 1996
DIOSDADO MALLARI, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
On December 27, 1990, police officers from the Capas Police Station, acting on reliable information, proceeded to Sitio 14, Sta. Rita, Capas, Tarlac to arrest petitioner Diosdado Mallari. The officers had personal knowledge of a standing warrant of arrest against Mallari for Homicide in Criminal Case No. 471. Upon locating him, they arrested him, searched his person, and found a homemade gun (paltik) and one live M-16 ammunition. He was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling the search was incidental to a lawful arrest based on the warrant and, alternatively, that it was a valid warrantless arrest as he was caught in flagrante delicto.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved all elements of Illegal Possession of Firearms, particularly the lack of license or permit for the firearm and ammunition.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Mallari. The Court held that while it concurred with the appellate court’s factual finding that a standing warrant existed—making the arrest and subsequent search valid—the prosecution nonetheless failed to prove an essential element of the crime. For a conviction of illegal possession, the prosecution must prove (a) the existence of the firearm and (b) that the accused had no license or permit to possess it. Here, the State did not present any certification from the Firearms and Explosives Unit or similar competent authority to prove that Mallari was not licensed to possess the paltik and ammunition. The Court distinguished this case from People v. Mesal, where other conclusive evidence established the accused could not possibly have a license. The records here were bereft of any such evidence. The absence of proof regarding the lack of license is fatal and results in a failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the seizure’s legality became immaterial, and Mallari was acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence.