G.R. No. 94784 May 8, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANGELITO CALING @ Lito, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of August 2, 1989, in Zone I, San Mariano, Isabela, accused-appellant Angelito Caling, a truck driver, arrived at a road blocked by two trucks owned by Emerchon Pua. Caling asked Emerchon to move his trucks, but Emerchon said they would not start. An irritated Caling took another route. Later, at his employer’s house, Caling heard one of Emerchon’s trucks start. Believing he had been lied to, Caling and his companion, Felino Neri (who was carrying an M-14 rifle), went to confront Emerchon. An altercation ensued. Caling went up the stepping board of Emerchon’s truck, cursed him, and tried to grab the key or steering wheel. Caling was pulled down by Emerchon’s brother and others. Two shots were then heard from the rear of the truck. Neri ran towards Emerchon, and Caling allegedly said, “Banatan mo na, pare.” Neri then shot Emerchon, who later died from his wounds. The Provincial Fiscal filed an information charging Caling and Neri with “qualified illegal possession of firearm used in murder” under Republic Act No. 1866. Only Caling was arraigned and stood trial, as Neri remained at large. The Regional Trial Court convicted Caling as a co-principal of the “special complex crime of Illegal Possession of Unlicensed Firearm Used in Homicide” and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Caling appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in convicting accused-appellant Angelito Caling of the special complex crime of illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm used in homicide under P.D. 1866.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the judgment of the Regional Trial Court and acquitted accused-appellant Angelito Caling. The Court held that P.D. 1866 does not define a “special complex crime” of illegal possession with homicide or murder. The law penalizes two distinct acts: (1) the simple unlawful possession of a firearm (first paragraph of Section 1), and (2) its aggravated form if the unlicensed firearm is used to commit homicide or murder (second paragraph of Section 1). The homicide or murder is a separate crime defined and punished under the Revised Penal Code, not absorbed by the illegal possession charge. For a conviction under P.D. 1866, the prosecution must prove two elements: (a) possession of a firearm, and (b) the lack of a license or permit for it. In this case, while Neri’s possession of a rifle was established, the prosecution failed to present evidence that the M-14 rifle was unlicensed. The rifle itself was not recovered or presented in evidence. Without proof that the firearm was unlicensed, the crime of illegal possession under P.D. 1866, whether simple or aggravated, cannot be sustained. Consequently, Caling’s conviction was not legally possible. The Court declined to rule on whether a separate charge for homicide or murder could lie against Caling or Neri.