G.R. No. 233209 . March 11, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HEROFIL OLARTE Y NAMUAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Herofil Olarte was charged with illegal possession of a hand grenade and an unlicensed firearm. Police officers, conducting surveillance for a robbery suspect known as “Boy Solo,” observed Olarte near an LBC branch. Upon seeing the officers, Olarte fled and was apprehended after a chase. A search of his person yielded a .25 caliber pistol replica and an M61 fragmentation grenade with an M204A2 fuse assembly. The prosecution established that Olarte had no license or permit for these items. The Regional Trial Court convicted him for illegal possession of the grenade under Republic Act No. 9516 but acquitted him for the firearm charge, as the item was a mere replica. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
Olarte denied the accusations, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested while riding a jeepney. He asserted that the grenade and replica pistol were not found on him but were later presented by another person, claiming they were from his bag, and that he was forced to admit ownership. A fire at the Hall of Justice destroyed the original records and some evidence, including the physical grenade. The prosecution’s case then relied on testimonial evidence and a certification from the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) officer who had examined the grenade.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Olarte’s guilt for illegal possession of an explosive beyond reasonable doubt, considering the loss of the grenade as physical evidence due to a fire.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Olarte. The ruling hinged on the prosecution’s failure to establish the corpus delicti—the body of the crime—which consists of two elements: (1) the existence of the explosive, and (2) the fact that the accused possessed it without the requisite license. The loss of the actual grenade was not fatal per se, as the corpus delicti can be proven by credible testimony or circumstantial evidence. However, the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to compensate for the missing object.
The Court emphasized that for illegal possession, the prosecution must prove the grenade was a genuine, live explosive. The sole evidence for its nature and authenticity was the EOD officer’s certification, which was considered hearsay. The officer was not presented in court for cross-examination, violating Olarte’s constitutional right to confront witnesses. Without the grenade for judicial inspection or competent expert testimony on its characteristics, the prosecution failed to prove the first element of the corpus delicti. The police officers who seized it were not explosives experts and could not definitively testify it was a live grenade. Consequently, the reasonable doubt persisted. The Court ruled that the constitutional right of the accused prevails, and the prosecution’s failure to meet its burden of proof mandates acquittal.