G.R. No. 221991 , August 30, 2017
JOSELITO PERALTA Y ZARENO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The prosecution alleged that on November 18, 2008, police officers responded to a call about a man firing a gun in Dagupan City. Upon arrival, they saw petitioner Joselito Peralta and a companion walking. Peralta was allegedly holding a .45 caliber pistol, which was in plain view. The officers apprehended him and confiscated the firearm, loaded with five live ammunitions. A certification from the Firearms and Explosives Office confirmed Peralta had no license for the weapon.
Peralta presented a contrasting defense. He claimed he was merely riding a motorcycle with his companion when flagged down by police. He denied possessing any firearm and asserted that only a knife was recovered from his companion. He alleged he was framed by police officers after his brother, who operated a “hataw” machine, stopped giving them “payola.” He also questioned the validity of his warrantless arrest.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Peralta’s conviction for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition under Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The crime of illegal possession of firearms has two elements: (1) the existence of the firearm and ammunition, and (2) the lack of a corresponding license or permit. Both elements were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The police officers positively identified Peralta carrying the firearm, and the certification conclusively established he had no license. The Court found the testimonies of the arresting officers credible and consistent, whereas Peralta’s claim of a frame-up was unsubstantiated.
Regarding the warrantless arrest, the Court ruled it was valid under the “in flagrante delicto” exception. The officers, responding to a specific report, personally saw Peralta in possession of a firearm in a public place. This constituted probable cause that a crime was being committed in their presence. The seizure of the firearm was likewise lawful under the plain view doctrine. Consequently, the firearm was admissible as evidence. The Court also clarified that the paraffin test results were immaterial, as the law punishes the mere possession without license, not the discharge of the weapon. The penalty imposed by the lower courts—an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor minimum to eight years of prision mayor maximum, plus a fine—was affirmed as within the range prescribed by law.