G.R. No. 163267 ; May 5, 2010
Teofilo Evangelista, Petitioner, vs. The People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Teofilo Evangelista, a Filipino contract worker, was charged with illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866. The prosecution alleged that on January 30, 1996, upon arrival at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport from Dubai, Evangelista was found to have in his possession a 9mm Jericho pistol, a Mini-Uzi submachine gun, and ammunition without the requisite license. Customs police testified that Evangelista admitted the firearms were bought in Angola and were turned over to the aircraft’s captain in Dubai. A certification confirmed he had no license.
The defense presented a different narrative. The pilot, Captain Edwin Nadurata, testified that Evangelista was detained in Dubai for possessing the firearms. The Dubai authorities would only release him if the pilot took custody of both the passenger and the firearms to ensure they were surrendered upon arrival in Manila. Captain Nadurata agreed, accepted the items into the cockpit, and turned them over to Philippine authorities upon landing. Evangelista’s possession was thus framed as a mere custodial transfer for repatriation, not a voluntary act.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Evangelista is guilty of illegal possession of firearms, considering the circumstances under which the firearms came into his custody and were transported.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that the crime of illegal possession is committed when a person possesses a firearm without the necessary license or permit, and this includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive possession. Constructive possession exists when the firearm is subject to the control and dominion of the accused, even without physical contact. In this case, the evidence established that Evangelista owned and purchased the firearms in Angola. His subsequent lack of physical custody during the flight, a result of the intervention by Dubai authorities and the pilot, did not extinguish his constructive possession. The Court emphasized that the temporary custody by the pilot was a mere precautionary measure for transport and did not negate Evangelista’s ownership and ultimate control over the contraband. His failure to present any license or permit was conclusive. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was correctly rejected, as his turning over of the firearms was not spontaneous but a direct result of his apprehension by authorities. Therefore, all elements of the offense were proven beyond reasonable doubt.