G.R. No. 112092 ; March 1, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERT NUÑEZ y LAGASCA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On March 6, 1992, in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Robert Nuñez fired at a passing tricycle, killing Calixto Pacorza and wounding Jerry Almendrez and Teofilo Pacquing. The victims reported the incident to the police. Responding officers proceeded to Nuñez’s residence, where he admitted to the shooting. SPO1 Henry Kang recovered a .22 caliber rifle from Nuñez, who failed to present any license or permit for the firearm. He was subsequently charged under four separate Informations for Homicide, two counts of Frustrated Homicide, and Illegal Possession of Firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866. Only the Illegal Possession case is subject of this appeal. The prosecution presented police investigators and a victim who identified Nuñez as the assailant and established the lack of a firearm license.
The defense presented a different narrative, claiming the shooting occurred inside a relative’s house and was an act of self-defense against armed aggressors. A defense witness, Cesar Celeste, testified he owned the firearm but possessed only an expired temporary license. The Regional Trial Court convicted Nuñez of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms, imposing life imprisonment, as the firearm was used in a homicide. Nuñez appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the penalty was excessive.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms under P.D. No. 1866, and if so, what is the proper penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the prosecution successfully proved the elements of illegal possession: Nuñez possessed the firearm and lacked the requisite license or permit. His defense of self-defense and claim that the firearm belonged to another were unavailing, as possession, not ownership, is the gravamen of the offense. His own admission to police and the recovery of the unlicensed firearm from him constituted sufficient evidence.
However, the Court modified the classification and penalty. The trial court convicted Nuñez of qualified illegal possession because the firearm was used in a homicide. The Supreme Court, applying the doctrine from People v. Molina, ruled that when an unlicensed firearm is used in a homicide or murder, the use of the firearm is absorbed, and the accused should be prosecuted for the graver offense of homicide or murder, not for the qualified offense under P.D. 1866. Since separate cases for homicide and frustrated homicide were filed against Nuñez, the illegal possession case should be treated as a simple offense. Following the amendatory law, Republic Act No. 8294 , which prescribes a lower penalty for simple illegal possession, the Court sentenced Nuñez under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to an imprisonment of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional medium as minimum, to five years, four months, and twenty days of prision correccional maximum as maximum, and a fine of P15,000.00.