G.R. No. 93516, August 12, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BASILIO DAMASO @ Bernardo/BERNIE MENDOZA @ KA DADO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Basilio Damaso was charged with violating Presidential Decree No. 1866 (illegal possession of firearms) in furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with subversion. The amended information alleged that on June 19, 1988, in Dagupan City, he had in his possession an M14 rifle with ammunition for subversive purposes. After pleading not guilty, trial ensued. The prosecution presented evidence obtained from a search of a house in Bonuan, Dagupan City, where subversive materials and the M14 rifle were found. The prosecution’s witnesses testified that the house was rented and the items owned by “Bernie Mendoza,” allegedly the appellant. The defense objected to the evidence as hearsay and obtained through an illegal search without a warrant. The trial court convicted the appellant of the crime and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The appellant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, failure to prove the qualifying circumstance of subversion, inadmissibility of evidence due to illegal search, and that the subversion charge should absorb the illegal firearms charge.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of firearms in connection with subversion.
2. Whether the evidence identifying the appellant as the lessee and owner of the firearm and subversive items is admissible and sufficient.
3. Whether the search and seizure conducted without a warrant violated constitutional rights.
4. Whether the charge for illegal possession of firearms is absorbed by the separate charge for subversion.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED the accused-appellant.
1. Insufficient Evidence: The prosecution’s evidence was woefully inadequate. The testimonies identifying the appellant as “Bernie Mendoza,” the lessee of the house and owner of the firearm and subversive items, were hearsay. The witnesses (Lt. Candido Quijardo and M/Sgt. Artemio Gomez) relied on statements from other persons (e.g., Luz Tanciangco and other occupants) not presented in court. Hearsay evidence, even if admitted due to lack of objection, has no probative value and cannot sustain a conviction. The prosecution failed to present direct witnesses to establish the appellant’s identity and ownership, violating his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
2. Illegal Search and Seizure: The search of the house was conducted without a warrant. The law enforcers entered based on information from an arrested person and a barangay captain, without exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search. The evidence obtained (firearm and subversive materials) was therefore inadmissible as “fruits of the poisonous tree.” The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated.
3. Qualifying Circumstance of Subversion Not Proven: The prosecution failed to prove that the illegal possession of firearms was in furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with subversion. The evidence linking the appellant to subversive activities was weak and based on inadmissible hearsay and illegally obtained items.
4. Doctrine of Absorption Not Applicable: The Court clarified that the charge under the third paragraph of P.D. 1866 (illegal possession of firearms qualified by subversion) is a distinct offense from subversion under R.A. 1700. The doctrine of absorption of common crimes in rebellion (as in Hernandez) does not apply here, as the legislature intended separate offenses. However, this issue became moot due to the acquittal based on insufficient evidence and constitutional violations.
The Court emphasized that while it supports law enforcement, operations must comply with legal procedures and constitutional rights. The evidence against the appellant was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.