PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMILIANO GUTIERREZ Y SUNGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Gutierrez

The Case

This is People versus Gutierrez, a criminal appeal from a conviction for illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Emiliano Gutierrez y Sunga for keeping a loaded revolver without any license from the proper authorities, and the trial court convicted him. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto: it restates the elements of illegal possession of firearms under the decree as amended, and it corrects a trial court that misapplied the Indeterminate Sentence Law to a crime punished by a special law.

Procedural History

An Information was filed against Gutierrez in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 52, charging him with violation of Presidential Decree Number 1866, as amended by Republic Act Number 8294. At arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and after pre-trial and trial the Regional Trial Court rendered its Judgment on December 18, 2012, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, plus a fine of 30,000 pesos, and ordering the confiscation of the firearm and ammunition in favor of the government.

Gutierrez appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court failed to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The appeal was denied, but the judgment was modified as to the penalty.

Facts

On the evening of February 19, 2008, a call reached the police community precinct reporting a disturbance along Musa Street in Sampaloc, Manila. Police officers responded and, upon arriving, saw a commotion during which they spotted Gutierrez holding a gun in his right hand. After a short chase they apprehended him, and he surrendered a Smith and Wesson Magnum caliber 22 revolver, bearing serial number S.5654, loaded with three live rounds of ammunition.

Gutierrez was informed of his rights, brought for medical examination, and then turned over to the investigating officer, who marked the firearm and ammunition and prepared the booking sheet, the arrest report, the affidavit of apprehension, and the referral to the City Prosecutor. A record verifier of the Firearms and Explosives Division of the Philippine National Police searched the records and issued a certification that Gutierrez was not licensed to possess the gun recovered from him.

The defense told a different story. Gutierrez claimed he was drinking with friends when an argument broke out, that someone shouted that the police were coming, and that he ran to his own garage, where two officers followed him. He said an officer came out of the storage room with the firearm and said, positive. He admitted that his father owned the gun, though his father had no license for it. The trial court believed the prosecution and convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Gutierrez was guilty of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under Section 1 of Presidential Decree Number 1866, as amended by Republic Act Number 8294.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in failing to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law in imposing the penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Presidential Decree Number 1866, as amended by Republic Act Number 8294, defines and penalizes the offense, and the Court quotes it in full:

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.

This first paragraph supplies the penalty for a low powered firearm, which the Court distinguishes from the higher penalty that follows.

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.

This second paragraph is the provision the Court applies to Gutierrez, because the caliber 22 magnum revolver is expressly classified as a high powered firearm, and it fixes the penalty from which the Indeterminate Sentence Law ranges are drawn.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal lacks merit and that both elements of the crime were established beyond reasonable doubt. The elements are, first, the existence of the subject firearm, and second, the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the license or permit to possess it. The Court stressed that the essence of the crime is possession, whether actual or constructive, and that the absence of a license is an essential ingredient that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. Here the firearm and ammunition were presented and identified in court, and the lack of a license was shown through the testimony of the records verifier and the certification he issued.

On the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses, the Court held that the trial court's findings on credibility are accorded great respect and even conclusive effect, because only the trial judge observes the deportment of a witness on the stand. The discrepancies pointed out, on whether Gutierrez was running toward or away from the officers, on the absence of a seizure receipt, and on whether he was present during marking, were immaterial because they did not touch the elements of the crime, and minor inconsistencies on details do not destroy credibility.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court did err in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The law provides:

Section 1. Hereinafter, 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.

Because the penalty for simple illegal possession of a high powered firearm is prision mayor in its minimum period, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence must come from prision correccional in its maximum period, the penalty next lower in degree, which runs from four years, two months and one day to six years. With no modifying circumstance attending the crime, the maximum must come from the medium period of prision mayor in its minimum period, which runs from six years, eight months and one day to seven years and four months.

Doctrine

Illegal possession of a firearm under Section 1 of Presidential Decree Number 1866, as amended, has two elements: the existence of the subject firearm, and the fact that the accused does not have the license or permit to possess it. Possession, actual or constructive, is the essence of the crime, and the absence of a license is an essential ingredient that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. The classification of the firearm controls the penalty, and a caliber 22 center-fire magnum is expressly a high powered firearm carrying prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of 30,000 pesos. Where the offense is punished by a special law, the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires a maximum not exceeding the maximum fixed by that law and a minimum not less than the minimum term prescribed by it, so the minimum is taken from the penalty next lower in degree.

Disposition

The appeal was denied and the conviction affirmed, but the judgment was modified so that Gutierrez suffers imprisonment ranging from four years, two months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to seven years and four months of prision mayor as maximum.

Remember This

Memorize the two elements: the existence of the firearm, and the absence of any license or permit, with possession as the essence of the crime. Examiners use this case to test the classification of a caliber 22 magnum as a high powered firearm and the correct Indeterminate Sentence Law computation for a crime punished by a special law.