G.R. No. 156320; February 14, 2007
Rodolfo Abenes y Gacutan, Petitioner, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, Respondents.

FACTS

On May 8, 1998, during the election period, petitioner Rodolfo Abenes, a barangay chairman, was a passenger in a vehicle stopped at a COMELEC checkpoint in Pagadian City. Police officers, enforcing the gun ban, noticed a holstered .45 caliber pistol visibly tucked at his waist. When asked, Abenes claimed he had the necessary license and authority but failed to present any document. The firearm, a Norinco pistol with ammunition, was confiscated. A certification later confirmed he was not a licensed firearm holder.
Abenes was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm under P.D. No. 1866 and violation of the election gun ban under the Omnibus Election Code. The Regional Trial Court convicted him on both counts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Abenes appealed, arguing the firearm was not recovered from his person but from a bag inside the vehicle, which belonged to an unidentified hitchhiker.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved Abenes’s guilt for illegal possession of firearm and violation of the election gun ban beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Abenes of illegal possession of firearm but affirmed his conviction for violating the election gun ban. For illegal possession under P.D. No. 1866, the prosecution must prove two elements: the existence of the firearm and the fact that the accused who possessed it did not have a valid license. The Court found the prosecution failed to prove the second element. The mere presentation of a certification that Abenes was not a licensed firearm holder is insufficient; the prosecution must also prove that the firearm itself was not licensed. Since the prosecution did not present evidence that the specific firearm was unlicensed, an essential element of the crime was not established, warranting acquittal.
However, for the election offense under Section 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code, the law prohibits the carrying of any firearm outside one’s residence during the election period unless authorized by the COMELEC. This is a malum prohibitum offense where criminal intent is not required; mere possession during the ban period constitutes the violation. The prosecution successfully established that Abenes was carrying a firearm at a checkpoint during the election period without COMELEC authority. His defense of denial was deemed weak and unsubstantiated against the positive identification by the police officers. Thus, his conviction for the election offense stands, with the penalty modified.