G.R. No. L-25796 January 29, 1974
JOSE ILAGAN Y YLAGAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Ilagan was found drinking at the Idle Hours Bar in Manila on September 26, 1960. An altercation ensued with the bar’s floor manager, whom Ilagan threatened with a gun. He was ejected but then forcibly jerked open the bar’s glass door. Responding police officers apprehended Ilagan and found him in possession of an unlicensed .32 caliber pistol with eight live bullets. At trial, Ilagan admitted the gun belonged to his wife, Emiliana, who held a license for it in her capacity as a cashier-secretary. The defense presented evidence showing Emiliana had waived her right to the gun in Ilagan’s favor, and that Ilagan had applied for his own license. His application, however, was not given due course by the Philippine Constabulary due to lacking documents, and he failed to renew it. Ilagan also presented documents identifying him as a confidential agent in the office of the Mayor of Pasay City.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the petitioner is guilty of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, considering his defenses of a pending license application, his alleged status as a peace officer, and his claim of lacking animus possidendi (intent to possess).

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court methodically rejected all three defenses. First, the mere filing of a license application does not confer authority to possess a firearm; Ilagan’s application was incomplete and never approved, making his possession unlawful. Second, Ilagan was not a “peace officer” exempt from the license requirement under the law. The cited provisions of the Revised Administrative Code and the Pasay City Charter do not include a “confidential agent” within the enumerated peace officers. Unlike in People vs. Macarandang, where the accused was a duly appointed secret agent for crime detection, Ilagan presented no evidence of any official authorization to carry a firearm in the performance of public duties. Third, the claim of lacking animus possidendi was untenable. The Court of Appeals’ findings, which the Supreme Court upheld, showed Ilagan did not go directly home to return the gun to his wife. Instead, he brought it to a bar, used it to threaten the manager, and employed it in an attempt to break into the establishment. This demonstrated conscious and deliberate possession, not a casual or incidental one. His own belief that his application justified possession further negated the defense of lack of intent. Consequently, his possession was illegal, and his conviction stands.