GR 240475; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 240475 , July 24, 2019
JONATHAN DE GUZMAN Y AGUILAR, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
FACTS
Petitioner Jonathan De Guzman y Aguilar was charged with illegal possession of a firearm under Republic Act No. 10591. The prosecution’s lone witness, SPO1 Ador Estera, testified that on October 22, 2014, while on patrol in Pasay City, he and other officers saw De Guzman wielding a .38 caliber revolver and shouting. They approached, identified themselves, and De Guzman complied when told to put down the gun. SPO1 Estera asked if he had a license, but De Guzman remained silent. He was handcuffed, frisked, and a sachet of suspected shabu was found on him. The firearm and ammunition were marked at the police station. De Guzman was separately charged for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
The defense presented a different version. De Guzman claimed he was arrested on October 21, 2014, while dressing chickens at his market stall. SPO1 Estera, allegedly holding a grudge because De Guzman had won a cockfight bet against him a month prior, approached him about the knives used for his business. After a confrontation, SPO1 Estera pointed his gun at De Guzman, arrested him, and later demanded Php 300,000 to avoid charges. De Guzman admitted owning a licensed .45 caliber firearm but denied possessing the unlicensed .38 caliber revolver. His sister corroborated his testimony.
The Regional Trial Court convicted De Guzman of illegal possession of a firearm, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals. However, in a separate case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the Regional Trial Court acquitted De Guzman, ruling that the search yielding the shabu was invalid as it was not based on a lawful arrest, since De Guzman was found to have only knives for his trade, not a firearm.
ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner Jonathan De Guzman y Aguilar is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Republic Act No. 10591 (illegal possession of a firearm).
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals Decision and acquitted petitioner Jonathan De Guzman y Aguilar. Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands moral certainty. The prosecution failed to establish the elements of illegal possession of a firearm. The lone testimony of SPO1 Estera was insufficient to prove the existence of the firearm and its lack of license, especially given the defense’s credible account of a vendetta arising from a cockfight win and the subsequent acquittal in the related drug case, which undermined the prosecution’s narrative. The prosecution’s evidence did not overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.