G.R. No. L-5793 August 27, 1953
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO ESTOISTA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Alberto Estoista, was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Lanao for homicide through reckless imprudence and illegal possession of a firearm under one information. He was acquitted of homicide but found guilty of illegal possession of a firearm under Republic Act No. 4 and sentenced to one year imprisonment. The firearm in question was a rifle belonging to his father, Bruno Estoista, who held a legal permit for it. They lived in the same house. On February 10, 1949, Alberto took the rifle to shoot a wild rooster on their family plantation. From a spot 100 to 120 meters from the house, he fired and accidentally hit and killed a family laborer, Diragon Dima, whose presence he did not perceive. The evidence was conflicting on whether Bruno was with Alberto at the time. Bruno testified in court that he was about 20 meters behind Alberto. However, sworn affidavits executed by both Bruno and Alberto on the same day of the incident at the Constabulary headquarters stated that Alberto was alone when he went hunting. The trial court found these affidavits more credible than Bruno’s later court testimony, which was deemed interested. The appeal raises factual, legal, and constitutional questions, the latter objecting that the penalty under Republic Act No. 4 (5 to 10 years imprisonment) is cruel and unusual.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) Whether Alberto Estoista’s act of carrying and using his father’s rifle, while alone, constitutes illegal possession of a firearm under Republic Act No. 4 ; and (2) Whether the penalty provided by Republic Act No. 4 constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. On the first issue, the Court held that Alberto Estoista’s possession of the rifle was illegal. The word “possesses” in Republic Act No. 4 is to be construed broadly to include “carries” and “holds,” and ownership is not necessary for conviction; control or dominion over the weapon is the essential factor. The Court distinguished the case from United States vs. Samson by ruling that temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless possession (like merely carrying a gun for its owner without intent to use) is not a violation. However, Alberto’s possession was not of that character. He was away from his father’s sight and control, carried the gun for the purpose of using it, and did use it, with fatal consequences. Thus, his possession was not harmless or incidental. On the second issue, the Court held that the penalty of 5 to 10 years imprisonment for illegal possession of a firearm is not cruel and unusual punishment. Considering the prevalent lawlessness and public security concerns the law aims to address, such imprisonment is justified and not so flagrantly oppressive as to shock the moral sense of the community. The constitutionality of a statute is not judged based on exceptional cases. However, applying the full penalty to the appellant would be too harsh. Therefore, the Court modified the trial court’s sentence and imposed imprisonment for five years as mandated by the law for possession of a rifle. Concurrently, considering the degree of his malice, the Court recommended to the President, through the Secretary of Justice, that the imprisonment be reduced to six months. The motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated December 3, 1953, which further clarified that the penalty is not unconstitutional and that confiscation of the firearm, even if owned by another, is valid under the police power of the state.