GR 84857; (January 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 84857 January 16, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO DELA ROSA Y AVILES, ANTONIO DELA ROSA Y AVILES, and RODOLFO QUIMSON Y NAVA (At large), accused-appellants.
FACTS
An Information was filed against Rodolfo dela Rosa, Antonio dela Rosa, Cresencio Reyes, and Rodolfo Quimson for illegal possession of firearms and explosives under Presidential Decree No. 1866. The charge stemmed from an incident on December 9, 1986, in Labrador, Pangasinan, where the accused allegedly possessed three homemade shotguns and fourteen pieces of dynamite without a license. The accused initially pleaded not guilty, then changed their plea to guilty, but later withdrew it. Trial proceeded, and Cresencio Reyes later pleaded guilty to a lesser offense and became a prosecution witness.
The prosecution evidence established that in the morning of December 9, 1986, the four accused surrendered to Kagawad Valeriano Rigor. They informed him they had shot a New People’s Army (NPA) member named Benjamin Nano alias Kumander Tamang and wanted to lead a new life. They had with them a short shotgun (Exhibit A) and a bag containing sticks of dynamite (Exhibit C to C-7). Kagawad Rigor reported to the police, who then went to his house. The police saw the shotgun and dynamite, and the accused were taken into custody. The following day, based on information from Cresencio Reyes, the police recovered two long shotguns (Exhibits B and D) from a hiding place.
The defense, presented by the remaining accused (Rodolfo dela Rosa, Antonio dela Rosa, and Rodolfo Quimson), claimed they were recruited by Kumander Tamang into the NPA. They testified that on December 8, 1986, Kumander Tamang was shot by Cresencio Reyes. Reyes then suggested they surrender, gathered the shotgun and dynamite (which belonged to Kumander Tamang), and led them to Kagawad Rigor’s house to turn over the items. They denied any ownership or prior possession of the items and claimed they saw the two long shotguns (Exhibits B and D) for the first time in court.
The trial court convicted the three accused. Antonio dela Rosa did not appeal, and Rodolfo Quimson escaped. Only Rodolfo dela Rosa appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Rodolfo dela Rosa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearms and explosives under P.D. No. 1866.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court acquitted accused-appellant Rodolfo dela Rosa.
The Court held that to convict for illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866, the prosecution must prove (i) the accused possessed a firearm, and (ii) the accused lacked the authority or license to possess it. Possession must be with animus possidendi (intent to possess). The crime is malum prohibitum, where good faith is generally not a defense, but the prosecution must still prove the accused had the intent to possess (animus possidendi) the firearm.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove animus possidendi on the part of Rodolfo dela Rosa. The evidence showed he and his co-accused surrendered the shotgun and dynamite to the authorities. Their act of surrender negated any intent to possess the items for their own use or benefit. The items were owned by Kumander Tamang, and the accused merely transported them for the purpose of turning them over to the authorities. The Court distinguished this from cases where possession is exclusive and under the accused’s control and custody. Here, the possession was merely incidental to the surrender.
Furthermore, the Court found the extrajudicial confession of Rodolfo dela Rosa inadmissible. It was taken without the assistance of counsel, despite his request for one, in violation of his constitutional rights. The confession was also uncorroborated by other evidence of guilt.
The Court also noted that the two long shotguns (Exhibits B and D) were recovered a day after the arrest based solely on information from co-accused Cresencio Reyes. There was no evidence linking Rodolfo dela Rosa to these firearms.
Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove Rodolfo dela Rosa’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He was ordered released unless detained for other lawful causes.