GR 190569; (April, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 190569; April 25, 2012
P/INSP. ARIEL S. ARTILLERO, Petitioner, vs. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, Overall Deputy Ombudsman, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman; BERNABE D. DUSABAN, Provincial Prosecutor, Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo; EDITO AGUILLON, Brgy. Capt., Brgy. Lanjagan, Ajuy, Iloilo, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner P/Insp. Ariel S. Artillero, Chief of Police of Ajuy, Iloilo, responded to reports of gunfire on August 6, 2008. His team encountered Barangay Captain Edito Aguillon, who was visibly intoxicated and openly carrying an M16 rifle with its barrel dragging on the road. Aguillon presented a firearm license but failed to produce a Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence (PTCFOR). Petitioner arrested Aguillon for violation of P.D. 1866 and endorsed the filing of a criminal complaint.
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case, finding insufficient evidence as Aguillon possessed a firearm license. This resolution was forwarded to and approved by the Office of the Ombudsman. Petitioner claims he was denied due process as he never received copies of Aguillon’s Counter-Affidavit or the dismissal resolutions, preventing him from filing a reply or a timely appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint and whether petitioner was denied due process.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The essence of illegal possession of firearm is the lack of a license or permit. The evidence conclusively showed that respondent Aguillon possessed a valid firearm license for the rifle. His failure to present a PTCFOR at the time of arrest did not, by itself, constitute the crime, as the absence of such a permit is not an element of the offense under P.D. 1866. The Ombudsman’s finding of insufficient evidence was within its constitutional mandate and prosecutorial discretion.
On the due process claim, the Court ruled that a complainant in a preliminary investigation is not entitled to notice of all proceedings. The right to due process is not violated by the non-furnishing of the respondent’s counter-affidavit or the resolution, as the complainant is not a party to the criminal case but merely a witness. The petitioner’s role was to provide evidence for the state; he had no vested right to control the prosecution or to receive all pleadings. His subsequent receipt of the Ombudsman’s resolution, upon his request, and his filing of a motion for reconsideration which was duly denied, satisfied the demands of due process.