PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMILIANO GUTIERREZ Y SUNGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
PAREDES, J.:
THIS APPEAL, filed by accused-appellant Emiliano Gutierrez y Sunga (appellant), seeks to reverse and set aside the Judgment[1] dated December 18, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Manila, in Criminal Case No. 08-259630, which found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Presidential Decree No. 1866[2] (PD 1866), as amended by Republic Act No. 8294[3] (RA 8294).
THE ANTECEDENTS
On February 22, 2008, an Information[4] was filed charging appellant with violating PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, as follows:
That on or about February 19, 2008, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one Smith & Wesson Magnum 22 caliber with Serial No. No. (sic) S.5654 with three (3) live ammunitions, without first securing the necessary license and/or permit therefor from the proper authorities.
Contrary to law.
At his arraignment, appellant entered[5] a plea of “Not Guilty”. During pre-trial[6], appellant stipulated that he is the same person cited as the accused in the Information and that the court has jurisdiction over his person as well as the offense charged. Thereafter, trial proceeded.
FOR THE PROSECUTION
The prosecution presented the testimonies of PO1 Sherwin D. Yumu[7] (PO1 Yumul), PO3 Edwin De Guzman[8] (PO3 De Guzman), and SPO4 Marvin Vicente[9] (SPO4 Vicente). Their testimonies stated, that:
On February 19, 2008, while at the España-Blumentritt Police Community Precinct (PCP) of the Sampaloc Police Station, SPO1 Nestor Cabatu (SPO1 Cabatu) received a call that there was an ongoing disturbance along Musa Street. Together with PO3 De Guzman and PO2 Clarmel Dimatulac, SPO1 Cabatu proceeded to Musa Street to investigate. Upon reaching the place, they noticed a commotion during which they spotted appellant holding a gun in his right hand. After a short chase, the police officers apprehended appellant who surrendered the gun, a Smith & Wesson Magnum caliber 22 revolver[10], with Serial No. S.5654, loaded with three (3) live ammunition[11]. After explaining to him his rights, appellant was brought to the hospital for medical examination then to Police Station No. 4 where the case was turned over to P01 Yumul. PO1 Yumul marked the firearm and ammunition, prepared the booking sheet and arrest report[12], the affidavit of apprehension[13], and the letter-referral[14] to the City Prosecutor; after which, he brought appellant to the inquest prosecutor.
When SPO4 Vicente, a record verifier of the Firearms and Explosives Division-Philippine National Police (FED-PNP), after a record search, determined that appellant was not licensed to possess the gun recovered from him; he issued a Certification[15] to that effect.
At the close of its case, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer[16] of Evidence and all its exhibits were admitted in the Order[17] dated August 4, 2009.
FOR THE DEFENSE
Appellant[18] and Ryan Joseph Galvez[19] testified for the defense. Their version is, as follows:
On February 19, 2008, at around 10:00 pm, appellant was having drinks with Tirso, Jeff and Egay, in front of Tirso’s house along Musa Street, when a heated argument erupted between Jeff and Tirso. Appellant tried to pacify them by keeping Tirso away from Jeff when somebody shouted “may pulis”. Startled by the shout, Tirso ran towards his house while appellant ran towards his own at the corner of Musa Street and Blumentritt. He was able to enter the garage but two police officers followed him. When he was told to come out of the garage, he did so with SPO1 Cabatu behind him. PO2 De Guzman was left at the door of the storage room. After a few minutes, PO3 De Guzman came out with the subject firearm and said, “Positive”, to SPO1 Cabatu. Appellant was then handcuffed, informed of his rights, and then brought to the PCP. Appellant claimed that his father owned the gun though his father had no license for it.
Thereafter, the defense formally offered its single exhibit, which was admitted[20].
After trial, the RTC issued the assailed Judgment[21], the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premised on the foregoing considerations, judgment is rendered finding accused EMILIANO GUTIERREZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294. Since the firearm recovered from said accused is considered high-powered in nature, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision correccional in its maximum period, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor in its minimum period, as maximum, AND a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos ( 30,000.00).
The .22 caliber magnum revolver and the three (3) live ammunition recovered from the accused are ordered confiscated in favor of the government. Thus, the Branch Clerk of Court, this Court, is ordered to turn over the said firearm and the three (3) live ammunition marked as Exhibits “D” and sub-markings to the Firearm and Explosives Division, Philippine National Police, Camp Crame, Quezon City, for proper disposition within fifteen (15) days from promulgation date.
SO ORDERED[22]. (Emphasis in the original)
Hence this appeal[23], appellant ascribing the following errors to the RTC, thus:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHOSE GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
ASSUMING THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY AS CHARGED, THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW IN THE PENALTY IMPOSED UPON HIM[24].
THE ISSUE
At the core of this appeal is the question – -whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under Section 1 of PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294.
THE COURT’S RULING
The appeal lacks merit.
Appellant argues[25] that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden that appellant was in possession of the subject firearm at the time of his arrest. He points out[26] supposed inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution which should have cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of events. We are not convinced.
Illegal possession of firearms and ammunition is defined and penalized in Section 1 of PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, as:
Sec. 1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition or instruments used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition. – The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was committed.
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered firearm which includes those with bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but considered powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no other crime was committed by the person arrested. xxx
Thus, the elements of the crime, are: (a) the existence of the subject firearm; and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the license or permit to possess the same. The essence of the crime of illegal possession is the possession, whether actual or constructive, of the subject firearm, without which there can be no conviction for illegal possession. After possession is established by the prosecution, it would only be a matter of course to determine whether the accused has a license to possess the firearm. Possession of any firearm becomes unlawful only if the necessary permit or license therefor is not first obtained. The absence of license and legal authority constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of firearm and every ingredient or essential element of an offense must be shown by the prosecution by proof beyond reasonable doubt[27].
In the present case, the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crime charged. As to the first element, the subject firearm and ammunition[28] were presented before the court and properly identified[29]. With respect to the second element, the negative fact that the appellant had no license or permit to own or possess the firearm and ammunition was established through the testimony[30] of SPO4 Vicente, a representative of the FED-PNP, and the Certification31 he issued that the appellant has no license or permit to possess the subject firearm and ammunition.
On the other hand, appellant’s possession of the loaded firearm at the time of his arrest was shown when PO3 De Guzman testified[32] on to the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the subject firearm with ammunition. Well-settled is the rule in appellate review that the trial court’s factual findings, such as its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions drawn from the factual findings, are accorded great respect and have even conclusive effect[33]. The reason for the rule is because the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’ deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts. Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath. These are significant factors in evaluating the sincerity of witnesses, in the process of unearthing the truth. As such, appellate courts will generally not disturb such findings unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case[34]. In this case, we do not find any sufficient reason to disturb the findings of the RTC.
Moreover, the inconsistencies pointed out by the appellant in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution with respect to whether the appellant was running towards the apprehending officers, or that he was being chased by them; the failure to issue a seizure receipt; and whether appellant was present or not when the firearm and ammunition were marked, do not in any way negate the truthfulness of such testimonies. For one, the alleged inconsistencies are immaterial and irrelevant because these do not go into the determination of the element of the crime; hence, the perceived inconsistencies do not tend to prove appellant’s guilt or innocence of the crime charged. It is well-settled that immaterial and insignificant details do not discredit a testimony on the very material and significant point bearing on the very act of accused-appellants. As long as the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies
therein cannot destroy their credibility[35]. More importantly, when the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and can not have any bearing on the essential fact testified to[36] and could not be a basis for acquittal[37]. A few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses. Instead of weakening their testimonies, these inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility[38] because they discount the possibility of their being rehearsed testimony[39].
AS TO THE PENALTY IMPOSED
The RTC erred in its application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL). The ISL provides that in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same[40].
The penalty for simple illegal possession of a high powered firearm is prision mayor in its minimum period. Accordingly, the minimum range of the indeterminate sentence shall be taken from any of the periods of prision correccional maximum, the penalty next lower in degree to the penalty of prision mayor minimum. Prision correccional maximum has a duration of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. On the other hand, the maximum penalty to be imposed, taking into consideration the absence of any modifying circumstance attending the commission of the crime, shall be taken from the medium period of prision mayor minimum which ranges from six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seven (7) years and four (4) months. As such, appellant should have been sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, and six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is DENIED. The assailed Judgment dated December 18, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Manila, in Criminal Case No. 08-259630, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is sentenced to suffer a term of imprisonment ranging from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Dicdican, I. P., Chairperson, and *Reyes-Carpio, A., JJ., concur.
* Vice J. Ybañez per Office Order No. 61-15-RSF dated February 25, 2015.
[1] Records, pp. 438-45.
[2] Codifying The Laws On Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing In, Acquisition Or Disposition, Of Firearms, Ammunition Or Explosives Or Instruments Used In The Manufacture Of Firearms, Ammunition Or Explosives, And Imposing Stiffer Penalties For Certain Violations Thereof And For Relevant Purposes.
[3] An Act Amending The Provisions Of Presidential Decree No. 1866, As Amended, Entitled “Codifying The Laws On Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing In, Acquisition Or Disposition Of Firearms, Ammunition Or Explosives Or Instruments Used In The Manufacture Of Firearms, Ammunition Or Explosives, And Imposing Stiffer Penalties For Certain Violations Thereof, And For Relevant Purposes.”
[4] Records, p. 1.
[5] Records, pp. 79-80.
[6] Records, pp. 98-101.
[7] Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), January 27, 2009, records, pp. 118-53.
[8] TSN, March 24, 2009, records, pp. 157-94.
[9] TSN, June 4, 2009, records, pp. 204-23.
[10] Exhibits D and D-4.
[11] Exhibits D-1 to D-3a.
[12] Exhibits B to B-2, records, p. 2.
[13] Exhibits A to A-3, records, p. 9.
[14] Exhibits C to C-1, records, p. 6
[15] Exhibits E to E-2, records, p. 199.
[16] Records, pp. 225-9.
[17] Records, p. 228.
[18] TSN, October 22, 2009, records, pp. 238-89.
[19] TSN, February 1, 2011, records, pp. 372-428.
[20] Records, p. 233.
[21] Records, pp. 438-45.
[22] Records, pp. 444-5.
[23] Records, pp. 491-2.
[24] Rollo, pp. 25.
[25] Rollo, p. 29.
[26] Rollo, pp. 29-31.
[27] People vs. Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October 11, 2011, citing Del Rosario vs. People, G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001.
[28] Exhibits D to D-3a.
[29] TSN, January 27, 2009, records, pp. 128-32; TSN, March 24, 2009, records. pp. 170-2.
[30] TSN, June 4, 2009, records, pp. 204-23.
[31] Records, p. 199.
[32] TSN, March 24, 2009, records, pp. 157-94.
[33] People vs. Yau, G.R. No. 208170, August 20, 2014.
[34] See People vs. Antonio, G.R. No. 208623, July 23, 2014.
[35] Avelino vs. People., G.R. No. 181444, July 17, 2013, citing Madali vs. People, G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009.
[36] See People vs. Apeggu, G. R. No. 130657, April 1, 2002.
[37] See People vs. Bautista, G.R. No.177320, February 22, 2012.
[38] See People vs. Tobias, G.R. No. 193478, June 23, 2014.
[39] People vs. Gahi, G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014.
[40] Section 1, Indeterminate Sentence Law.