THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARTEMIO TEJERO Y ALCOPRA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On July 6, 1956, at about 11:00 o’clock in the morning, while
Patrolman Zosimo Talavera of the Manila Police Department was on his way
from the Bureau of Civil Service to attend to an official errand, he
met the accused near the corner of Lepanto and P. Campa Streets, Manila.
Talavera notices that the accused had a gun tucked on the left side of
his waist which was visible because the shirt he was then wearing was
transparent. Talavera introduced himself as a peace officer and asked
him whether he had a license to possess the gun and the accused answered
that he had none. Asked why he was carrying an unlicensed gun, the
accused said that he was then on his way to the city jail to see Lt.
Cariño of the Manila Police Department. When Talavera accompanied the
accused to the city jail, Lt. Cariño was out so the accused was brought
to the police station for investigation. There he made a written
statement regarding the possession of the gun which he did not sign
because he wanted first to have the benefit of a lawyer.

The accused was charged with illegal possession of firearm before
the Court of First Instance of Manila who, after trial, was found guilty
and sentenced to suffer 1 year and 1 day imprisonment as minimum to 2
years as maximum, and to pay the costs, and as a result the gun
confiscated in his possession was declared forfeited in favor of the
Government. After his motion for reconsideration was denied, he appealed
directly to this Court.

One of the questions raised by appellant is that the trial
court erred “in not giving credit to the intention of the accused of
surrendering the firearm to the proper authorities pending the proper
replacement of the licensed firearm.” According to appellant’s counsel,
the accused was a holder of a licensed firearm and when he was accosted
by Pat. Talavera and was asked if he had a license for the gun tucked on
the left side of his waist he answered in the negative but stated that
he was on his way to the city jail to surrender the same Lt. Jesus
Cariño of the Manila Police Department. Appellant also claims that the
reason why he intended to surrender said firearm was because his
licensed firearm was defective or out of order and he wanted to replace
it with the gun he had then in his possession. The trial court did not
give credence to this claim of appellant which finds support in the
testimony of Lt. Teofilo Salvador and Capt. Elazigue of the Philippine
constabulary.

The Solicitor General, on the other hand, disputes the claim of
appellant that when he was accosted by Pat. Talavera he was on his way
to the office of Lt. Cariño to surrender the firearm in question, and on
this point, he makes the following comment: “This contention x x x
cannot prevail. In the first place, if we were to believe his story,
appellant had been in possession of the firearm in question (Exh. A)
since July 1, 1956, when he was apprehended at the corner of Lepanto and
P. Campa streets x x x. In the second place, if it were really true
that on July 3, 1956, Lt. Cariño of the MPD advised him to first apply
for a license to possess Exhibit A, why didn’t appellant take concrete
steps to apply for said license before carrying it in public? In the
third place, since appellant is a licensed possessor of firearm (Exh. 2)
in his capacity as overseer of his widowed mother, he knew that one of
the conditions imposed upon him was not to carry the said firearm
outside of his residence x x x. Why then did appellant carry outside of
his residence Exh. A which was unlicensed?

It would therefore appear that the appeal before us involves an
evaluation of the evidence submitted by the parties, or a determination
of certain questions of fact relative to the theory of appellant, and
hence this appeal comes under the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
It should therefore be certified to the latter court for adjudication.

Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that this case be certified to
the Court of Appeals for adjudication in accordance with law.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador,
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez
David, JJ., concur,