G.R. No. L-76728, August 30, 1988
People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Cruz alias Rene Hapon

FACTS

The accused, Reynaldo Cruz, was charged with illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. On May 9, 1986, a PC/CRIG team, acting on a tip about a stolen car, arrested two carnapping suspects. These suspects led the team to an apartment in Quezon City, owned by the sister of the accused, where Cruz and others were found. The suspects informed the team that Cruz was armed. A search of the apartment revealed a clutch bag containing a .38 caliber paltik revolver, a live bullet, and a hand grenade under a bar approximately one meter from where Cruz was sleeping. Upon being awakened, Cruz allegedly admitted ownership of the bag and its contents in the presence of the arresting team. A subsequent verification confirmed he had no license for the firearm, and only military personnel were authorized to possess hand grenades.
The defense presented a contrasting version. Cruz denied ownership, claiming the bag belonged to another suspect, Joey Flores, and was “planted” by the PC operatives. He testified that he was sleeping when the team barged in, and he and his companions were arrested, tied, brought to Camp Bicutan, and tortured for five days to sign a prepared confession. He asserted he was not allowed visitors and that a medical certificate for his injuries was left with the officers. His claim was corroborated by two other witnesses.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in illegal possession of the firearm and hand grenade, considering the conflicting accounts and the admissibility of his extrajudicial confession.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the nature of possession under the law and the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence independent of the inadmissible confession. Ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession; the law requires mere possession, which includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive possession—the subjection of the thing to one’s control and management. Here, the firearm and grenade were found in a bag under a bar just one meter from where the accused was sleeping inside his sister’s apartment. This proximity, within an area under his immediate control and domain while he was present, established constructive possession.
The Court found the defense of “planting” and frame-up unsubstantiated and inherently weak. The arresting officers’ testimonies were deemed credible and consistent. Furthermore, the search and seizure were deemed valid. The team was lawfully inside the apartment, having been allowed entry by the owner (the accused’s sister) while in hot pursuit of carnapping suspects. The Court cited precedent that an unlicensed firearm may be seized without a warrant when discovered in plain view during a lawful arrest for another offense.
While the Court agreed with the defense that the accused’s extrajudicial confession was inadmissible for having been obtained without the assistance of counsel during custodial investigation, in violation of constitutional rights, the conviction did not rely on it. The conviction was sustained based on the overwhelming physical evidence and the credible testimonies of the arresting officers, which sufficiently proved the corpus delicti and the accused’s constructive possession of the unlicensed firearm and explosive. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was thus affirmed.