G.R. No. L-4835. October 29, 1952

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANDRES GARCIA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Decisions / Signed Resolutions October 29, 1952 PARAS, C.J.:
Download PDF


PARAS, C.J.:


The appellant, Andres Garcia, was found guilty of illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition by the Court of First Instance of Samar,
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of from 5 to 10 years.

In the morning of February 10, 1951, the appellant appeared
before municipal policeman Donato Pantaleon in the municipal building of
Catbalogan, Samar, and surrendered a carbine, a magazine, and four rounds of
ammunition. In doing so, the appellant admitted to the policeman that he had
shot one Victorino Abobo.

In the present appeal, counsel for the appellant argues that,
under section 1 of Republic Act No. 482, a holder or possessor of an unlicensed
firearm or ammunition could surrender the same within one year from June 10,
1950, and was criminally liable only when “found, within the aforementioned
period of time, making use of said firearm and ammunition or carrying them on
his person except for the purpose of surrendering them”; and that as the
appellant was not caught or seen in the act of using the firearm or ammunition
surrendered by him, he cannot be convicted of illegal possession thereof.

This is untenable, since the law, in allowing the surrender of
an unlicensed firearm or ammunition within a fixed period, obviously sought to
prevent their use in the meantime. Hence, the expression “found * * * making use
of said firearm and ammunition” must be construed to include cases wherein the
unlicensed firearm or ammunition is proved to have been used at any time within
the specified period of one year.

Appellant’s contention that his previous conviction for the
crime of homicide in which he used the same firearm, is a bar to his prosecution
for illegal posse&sion thereof, if he is not to be punished twice for a
single act, deserves no serious consideration. His illegal possession of the
firearm was of course distinct from his homicidal act.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed with costs against
the appellant. So ordered.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and
Labrador, JJ., concur.