GR L 12; (December, 1945) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12; December 17, 1945
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SIXTO HERNANE, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The defendant-appellant, Sixto Hernane, was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for illegal possession of a firearm. On April 9, 1945, officers of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID), armed with a search warrant, raided Hernane’s house in Quezon City. They found an army carbine (Exhibit A) hidden behind a wardrobe. When asked if he had a license for it, Hernane replied “no” and was arrested. He subsequently gave a voluntary written statement (Exhibit B) in Tagalog, admitting the carbine was given to him by a boy named Rolando Cadili and that he kept it in his house. At trial, the defense presented witnesses, including Cadili (aged about 13), who claimed he hid the firearm in Hernane’s house without Hernane’s knowledge. Hernane’s counsel argued the written statement was procured through his ignorance as a “common tao.” The trial court found the defense testimony unconvincing and improbable, noting Hernane spoke English and was a PCAU employee, and that no duress was proven in obtaining his statement. The court relied on the prosecution evidence, including the officer’s testimony that Hernane admitted possession two weeks prior.
ISSUE
Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Sixto Hernane of illegal possession of a firearm.
RULING
Yes, the evidence was sufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The facts established beyond reasonable doubt that Hernane had possession and control of the carbine in his house without the required license. His extrajudicial confession (Exhibit B) was admissible as it was voluntarily made without duress, and his attempt to undermine its probative value failed. The testimony of the defense witnesses was found unconvincing and biased. The sentence of two months’ imprisonment and a P100 fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, was within the penalty range provided by law (Section 878 in relation to Section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended). The decision of the lower court was affirmed.