PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALFREDO YANSON Y RIVERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant Alfredo Yanson y Rivera was charged with
illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, in an information reading:

That on or about May 3, 1991, in the City of Naga, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,
custody and control one (1) handgun, Cal. 380 TM Star, SN-DK-819747 with one
spent shell and four (4) live ammunition, said accused not having any license
and/or permit to possess and carry the same from the authorities charged with
the issuance thereof.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

(p. 1, Record.)

After trial, the court a quo on December 16, 1991, rendered a
decision, disposing:

WHEREFORE, for all the
foregoing, the Court finds accused Alfredo Yanson y Rivera guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition
under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 and hereby sentences said
Alfredo Yanson y Rivera to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay
the costs. The handgun (Exh. A) and the
four rounds of live ammunition and spent shell (Exhs. B to B-4) are confiscated
and ordered forfeited in favor of the Government.

(p. 113, Record.)

Dissatisfied, accused-appellant has interposed the instant
appeal, assigning the following alleged errors of the trial court:

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM AND AMMUNITION, DESPITE
FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WITH MORAL
CERTAINTY AS MANDATED BY THE CONSTITUTION, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF
GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE
FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE WAS NOT LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO CARRY A
FIREARM.

III

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING EXHIBITS “C”
AND “F” DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROPERLY IDENTIFY THE
SAME AND THAT THE ACCUSED WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE
SIGNATORIES THEREIN.

The facts of the case, as established by the evidence and as correctly summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General, are
as follows:

In the morning of May 3, 1991, at around ten o’clock, Barangay Tanod
Rodolfo Arnaldo was drinking liquor with Roberto Bon, Lorenzo Resta and
Francisco Dacer inside the yard of his (Arnaldo’s) residence at Barangay
Concepcion Pequeña, Naga City, on the occasion of his son’s birthday (TSN, July
30, 1991, pp. 1-3). Appellant Alfredo
Yanson happened to pass by and he was invited by Rodolfo Arnaldo to drink with
the group (TSN, July 23, 1991, p. 5).

After     having   imbibed a considerable amount of liquor,
appellant began boasting that he had a gun (TSN, July 23, 1991, pp. 19-20). While the drinking continued, appellant left
for his house and returned after 5 to 10 minutes carrying a caliber .38 pistol
(TSN, July 25, 1991, p. 6). Appellant
cocked the pistol and pointed it at Arnaldo (TSN, July 30, 1991). Arnaldo raised the gun with his hand and the
gun fired upwards (TSN, July 23, 1991). Arnaldo then grappled with appellant for the gun and was able to take it
away from him. Having been thus
disarmed, appellant fled (TSN, July 23, 1991, pp. 7-8). He was later apprehended by unnamed,
Barangay Tanods of the area (TSN, July 23, 1991, p. 9) and brought to Arnaldo
with whom they waited for the police.

Lorenzo Resta went to the police substation of Concepcion Pequeña
and reported the incident to Pfc. Orlando Pitaliano of the Naga City Police
Force who was then on duty (TSN, August 1, 1991, p. 4). Pfc. Pitaliano proceeded to the scene of the
crime and upon approaching it, met Arnaldo and appellants. Arnaldo turned over to Pfc. Pitaliano
appellant’s gun, a “Star” .38 caliber handgun with serial number
DK-819747, and four rounds of live ammunition. When asked about them, appellant told Pfc. Pitaliano that his employer
gave them to him and he did not have the necessary papers for them. Pfc. Pitaliano then brought appellant to the
police headquarters of Naga City where appellant was investigated and detained
(TSN, August 1, 1991, pp. 4-6).

Accused-appellant claims that there is no evidence to show that
the gun (Exh. A) was actually confiscated from him inasmuch as Pfc. Orlando
Pitaliano, the arresting officer, did not issue a confiscation receipt for said
gun, nor did he place identifying marks on the gun. Whatever shortcomings there may be in the official behavior of
Pfc. Pitaliano do not vitiate the evidence of the prosecution that the gun,
Exhibit A, was confiscated from accused-appellant, for prosecution witness
Barangay Tanod Rodolfo Arnaldo categorically testified that Exhibit A was the
gun which he confiscated from accused-appellant and that before he turned it
over to the police he jotted down on a piece of paper (Exh. A-1) the serial
number, trade mark, and caliber of the gun (Exh. A).

A :       For
purposes of identification, Your Honor, please, the gun which I am presenting
has (already) previously been marked as Exhibit “A” during the
pre-trial, and the gun is described as trade mark star, it is a pistol, caliber
.380, with Serial No. DK 819747.

Q
:       Now, why were you able to state before this Honorable Court that this
is the very same gun which you confiscated from the accused?

A :       Before
I turned over it to the police I listed the serial number.

Q :      You
mean you jotted down the serial number?

A :       Yes,
sir.

Q :      What
else did you jot down in identifying this
gun?

A :       The
trade mark Star and caliber .380, and serial no. DK-S19747. I wrote them.

Q :      Where
did you jot them down?

A :       I
wrote them in a piece of paper. (The
witness is presenting to the Court a piece of paper with writing STAR, Caliber
.380, Serial No. DK-S19747.)

Q
:      When did you jot them down?

A
:       On May 3, 1991

Q :      Before
turning over the gun to the police?

A :       Yes,
sir

At this juncture, we would like to request that the piece of paper with the writing Star, caliber
.380 DK-819747, be marked as Exhibit “A-1”

(TSN, July 23, 1991, pp.
12-13)

And of course, Pfc.
Orlando Pitaliano unequivocally testified that Exhibit A was the gun which Barangay Tanod Rodolfo Arnaldo
turned over to him, mentioning the serial
number and the trade mark of the gun.

Q :      Please
point to him.

A
:       (Witness pointing to accused
Alfredo Yanson).

Q
:      You said that the gun was turned
over to you by Barangay Tanod Rodolfo Arnaldo together with four live bullets
and one empty shell. If you see this
gun again will you be able to identify it?

A
:       Yes, sir

Q
:      Showing to you here a pistol – a
handgun – look at it and tell the Court what relation has this to that one
turned over to you by Rodolfo Arnaldo as the handgun taken from the accused?

A :       The
same.

Q
:      Why do you say that it is the same?

A
:       Because of the serial number and
the trade mark.

Q :      What
is the serial number?

A :       819747

Q :      And
the trade mark?

A :       Star.

Q
:      And how about the four live bullets
and an empty shell – if they are shown to you, will you be able to identify
them?

A :       Yes,
sir.

(TSN, August 1, 1991, pp.
7-8)

As the gun was thus positively identified by the said two prosecution witnesses, no
doubt can reasonably be engendered in the mind of this Court that Exhibit A is the gun confiscated from accused-appellant by Barangay Tanod
Arnaldo and turned over by Arnaldo to Pfc.
Pitaliano. The testimony of Pfc.
Pitaliano, a police officer, and Arnaldo, a Barangay Tanod exercising the
functions of a policeman, must be given full credit in the absence of evidence
that they were actuated by any improper motive for they are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner.

The appellant failed to show that the police officers were actuated
by any improper motive in testifying as they did. Courts generally give full faith and credit to police officers
for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner (Rule
131, Sec. 5[m], Rules of Court; People vs. Gamayon, 121 SCRA 642; People vs.
Policarpio, 158 SCRA 85; People vs. Patog, G.R. No. 69620, September 24, 1986;
People vs. Natipravat, 145 SCRA 483; People vs. De Jesus, 145 SCRA 521).

(People vs. Lamog, 172 SCRA
342, 348 [1989])

Accused-appellant charged that Arnaldo was enraged by
accused-appellant’s remark that Arnaldo was better off because he was engaged
in jueteng and cara y cruz, is totally uncorroborated and comes from an
obviously biased and interested witness, and, therefore, cannot be given any
evidentiary weight.

Next, accused-appellant tries to capitalize on the supposed
mistake of prosecution witness Lorenzo Resta in declaring that the color of the
handle of the gun is white, while defense counsel in his manifestation stated
that he perceived the color of the handle to be cream. The difference between the colors white and
cream is so slight that even if Resta were wrong, his mistake would not affect
his credibility. The thrust of the
testimony of prosecution witnesses Arnaldo and Pitaliano, identifying the gun
on the basis of its serial number and brand, renders Resta’s mistake
insignificant and inconsequential.

Finally, accused-appellant
contends that the prosecution failed to prove that he had no license or permit
to carry firearms. In support of his
contention, accused-appellant assails the admission of Exhibits C and F, the
certifications respectively, issued by the Philippine National Police,
Camarines Sur Provincial Office, and the Firearms and Explosives Offices, Camp
Crame, to the effect that according to the records of said offices,
accused-appellant was not issued a permit to carry firearms. He anchors his contention on Sections 24 and
25 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, which require that a copy of a public
document, in order to be admissible in evidence, must contain an attestation by
the official having legal custody of the document that the copy is a correct
copy of the original or a
specific part thereof, and he argues that, since Exhibits C and F do not
contain such an attestation, they are not admissible in evidence. Accused-appellant misapprehends the rules on
evidence, Section 24 and 25 apply to cases where there is an existing public
document in the custody of a public officer. Where there is no existing public
document or there is lack
of record, the governing rule is Section 28 of Rule 132, which reads:

Sec. 28. Proof of lack of record. – A
written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record
or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified
tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a
certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of
his office contain no such record or entry.

Exhibits C and F were issued in conformity with Section 28 of
Rule 132, and are, therefore, admissible in evidence.

In the instant case, however, the decision rendered by the lower court
makes mention of Exhibit F-2 showing that the accused is not a registered
physician. That document is signed by
Jose Ma. Delgado, chairman of the Board of Medical Examiners, wherein it is
stated, in part, that “there is nothing in the records of this Board to
show that Mr. Fernando C. Quebral is a registered physician.” This
document is admissible as evidence of its contents, under one of the exceptions
to the hearsay rule, regarding official written statements. “The certificate of a custodian that he
has diligently searched for a document or an entry of a specified tenor and has
been unable to find it ought to be usually as satisfactory for evidencing its
non-existence in his office as his testimony on the stand to this effect would
be.” (3 Wigmore on Evidence, p. 561.)

(People vs. Quebral, 68 Phil
564, 567-568 [1939])

Moreover, had accused-appellant been issued such a permit to
possess firearms, he could have easily presented it in court. But he did not. His failure to do so reinforces the position of the prosecution
that he was not issued such a permit.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed
in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Vitug, JJ., concur.