G.R. No. 118078 July 15, 1997
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Oscar Villanueva, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused Oscar Villanueva, along with Reynaldo Bartolata and three Sola brothers (Johnny, Dagoy, and Bobong), was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms under P.D. No. 1866. The information alleged that on April 13, 1993, in Sitio Toquip, Barangay Jagnaan, San Jacinto, Masbate, the accused conspired to possess three “lantakas” (homemade guns) and one “sumpak” (a shorter homemade gun) without the necessary permit or license. Only Bartolata and Villanueva were apprehended; the Sola brothers remained at large. Both pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented witnesses (SPO4 Pascual Delavin, Bgy. Captain Jose Nuñez, and Bgy. Tanod Chief Gomez Samson) who testified that a police team, acting on a report about armed persons, encountered the five accused along a trail in Sitio Toquip. Bartolata, Villanueva, and Johnny Sola were each carrying a “lantaka,” Dagoy Sola had a “sumpak,” and Bobong Sola had a bolo. Upon being asked to surrender, Bartolata and Villanueva laid down their arms, while the others fled. The defense presented alibis. Villanueva claimed he was at his farm, was asked by policemen to guide them to Bartolata’s house, and later was shown the firearms allegedly taken from his own house, which he denied owning. Bartolata claimed he was mauled and arrested at his house while roofing. The Regional Trial Court convicted both Bartolata and Villanueva, relying on the positive identification by prosecution witnesses and finding the defense testimonies inconsistent. Bartolata died after the trial court decision, leaving only Villanueva to appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms against accused-appellant Oscar Villanueva.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED Oscar Villanueva due to insufficiency of evidence. The Court held that for illegal possession of firearms, the prosecution must prove: (a) the existence of the firearm, and (b) that the accused who owned or possessed it did not have the corresponding license or permit. The second element is a negative fact that the prosecution must allege and prove beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution failed to present any evidence, testimonial or documentary (such as a certification from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit), to prove that Villanueva did not have a license or permit for the firearms. The mere fact that he did not present a license when arrested does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to establish the lack of a license by clear and convincing evidence. This fatal omission rendered the evidence against Villanueva insufficient for conviction. Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to address the other assigned errors regarding witness credibility and the legality of the search and seizure.