G.R. No. L-8293; April 24, 1957
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SALVADOR LUBO and RAMON DOROMAL, defendants; SALVADOR LUBO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the night of September 29, 1952, Salvador Lubo shot Filomeno Divinagracia with a carbine inside the fish corral of his co-defendant Ramon Doromal in Bolilao, Dumangas, Iloilo. The following day, Lubo surrendered the carbine and thirteen bullets to the local authorities. An investigation revealed that Lubo had been in possession of the carbine and fifteen bullets since at least January 15, 1948, leading to charges for illegal possession of firearms. At trial, Lubo testified that in early January 1948, while cleaning a landing barge for Doromal, he found the carbine and bullets. He reported this to Doromal, who instructed him to present them to the municipal mayor. The mayor, Simplicio A. Pendon, issued a provisional permit (Exhibit 2) dated January 15, 1948, authorizing Lubo to possess the firearm and ammunition. The trial court convicted Lubo of violating the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty. Doromal was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Lubo appealed, raising questions of law.

ISSUE

1. Whether the provisional permit issued by the municipal mayor was valid and should exempt Lubo from liability.
2. Whether the element of animus possidendi (intent to possess) was absent in Lubo’s possession of the firearm.
3. Whether the penalty imposed was excessive, warranting a recommendation for executive clemency.

RULING

1. The provisional permit was invalid. A municipal mayor is not authorized by law to issue a license or temporary permit to possess firearms. Under the law, only the President of the Philippines could issue a regular license for personal protection, and only the Provost Marshal General or provincial provost marshal could issue a temporary license for surrendered firearms, valid for periods not exceeding three months at a time. Furthermore, the provisions under which such temporary licenses were issued (Section 2, Republic Act No. 4) were repealed by Republic Act No. 486 in 1950, which cancelled all such temporary licenses. Lubo failed to show he had a regular license or a valid provisional permit from competent authorities. The permit issued in 1948 was never renewed and was thus ineffective.
2. The element of animus possidendi was present. The crime of illegal possession of a firearm under the special law is malum prohibitum; thus, malice or criminal intent need not be proven. However, possession must be coupled with intent to possess. Lubo’s conduct—his continued possession and use of the firearm from 1948 to 1952, and his act of securing the “temporary license”—demonstrated the requisite intent to possess.
3. The penalty imposed was not unconstitutional, but a recommendation for clemency is warranted. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the penalty, citing People vs. Estoista, which held that imprisonment for illegal firearm possession is justified given the lawless conditions the law aims to suppress. The trial court’s failure to recommend clemency does not warrant acquittal. However, considering the mitigating circumstances—Lubo reported finding the firearm to his employer, surrendered it to the mayor on advice, possessed it under a mayoral permit for defending his employer’s fishpond, and voluntarily surrendered it after the shooting incident—the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but recommended to the Secretary of Justice that the penalty be reduced to one year.
The judgment of conviction was affirmed, with a recommendation for reduction of the penalty.