G.R. No. 265117 , November 13, 2023
ANTONIO ABIANG Y CABONCE, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonio Abiang was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under Republic Act No. 10591 . The prosecution’s case stemmed from the implementation of a search warrant at his residence, where a .38 caliber revolver and live ammunition were allegedly found inside a sling bag within a basin of clothes in his bedroom. The prosecution presented certifications from the Firearms and Explosives Office confirming Abiang was not a licensed firearm holder and detailed the search and seizure procedure, which was witnessed by barangay officials. The seized items were subjected to ballistic examination and offered as evidence.
Abiang interposed the defenses of denial and frame-up. He testified that the police officers forcibly entered his home and that the barangay captain did not witness the actual discovery of the firearm, as the officers were already photographing the evidence upon the official’s arrival. He claimed the firearm was planted, possibly due to envy over his relationship with local officials. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal possession of firearm were established: (1) the existence of the firearm and ammunition, and (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed them did not have a valid license or permit. The positive testimonies of the police officers, corroborated by the barangay witnesses and physical evidence, prevailed over Abiang’s bare denials and unsubstantiated claim of frame-up. The defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence of any ill motive on the part of the police to fabricate the charge.
The Court also found no merit in the challenge to the search warrant’s validity. Abiang’s claim that the warrant was a general warrant for authorizing a search for “undetermined ammunition” was unavailing. The Court ruled that the description “ammunitions for Cal. 38” in the warrant application and the judge’s order, which referenced the specific offense, was sufficient to particularize the items to be seized. The warrant particularly described the main item (a .38 caliber firearm) and its necessary ammunition, leaving no discretion to the executing officers. Furthermore, the Court noted that any objection to the warrant’s validity was deemed waived, as the defense failed to file a motion to quash prior to trial, thereby proceeding to challenge the evidence only during trial on the merits. Consequently, the seized items were admissible, and the prosecution proved Abiang’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.