THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,PETITIONER, VS. HON. MAXIMIANO ASUNCION, AS PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 104, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION, QUEZON CITY, AND R…

People versus Asuncion

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Judge Maximiano Asuncion, as Presiding Judge of Branch 104 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, and Rolando Abadilla. The prosecution asks the Supreme Court to reverse the trial judge's dismissal of a criminal information for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Presidential Decree Number 1866. The case matters because it fixes the rule that during the surrender period fixed by executive order, mere unlicensed possession is not yet a crime, and an information that does not allege use or carrying outside the residence states no offense at all.

Procedural History

On the thirtieth of July, 1987, an information for violation of Presidential Decree Number 1866 was filed against Rolando Abadilla before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Acting on the accused's motion, the respondent judge, in a Resolution dated the first of September, 1987, dismissed the information for failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute an offense. The prosecution moved for reconsideration, and the motion was denied in an Order dated the twenty-fifth of September, 1987. The prosecution then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Rolando Abadilla, a former colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, was charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The information alleged that on or about the twenty-seventh of July, 1987, in Quezon City, he wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had in his possession and custody a Sterling assault rifle, an Armalite rifle, a carbine, a revolver, a pistol, and various rounds of ammunition and magazines, without first securing the necessary license or permit from the lawful authority.

The information said nothing more. It did not allege that the firearms were carried outside his residence, nor that they were used in the commission of another offense.

The trial judge dismissed the information, reasoning that possession of loose firearms is not illegal per se because Executive Order Number 107, extended to the thirty-first of December, 1987 by Executive Order Number 222, gave holders and possessors of unlicensed firearms six months to surrender them without criminal liability, except if the firearm is carried outside the residence other than for surrender, or used in another offense. The prosecution brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge erred in holding that possession of loose firearms and ammunition is not illegal during the period covered by Executive Orders Numbers 107 and 222.
• Whether or not the information was sufficient, given that it did not allege that the firearms were carried outside the accused's residence or used in the commission of another offense.
• Whether or not the prosecution may prove at trial that the accused carried the firearms outside his residence despite the allegations of the information.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Republic Act Number 4, quoted by the Court in People versus Lopez, provides:

SEC. 2. The provisions of the foregoing section to the contrary notwithstanding, any person in possession of any of the prohibited articles therein mentioned, may, without incurring any criminal liability, surrender the same to such officer and within such period of time as the President shall by proclamation designate and fix immediately upon the approval of this Act: Provided, however, That this section shall not be interpreted to mean as in any way exempting from such liability any person, without the requisite license, found, within the aforementioned period of time, making use of any of said articles, except in self-defense, or carrying them on his person except for the purpose of surrendering them as herein required.

This provision is the model the Court follows, because Executive Order Number 107, as amended, is similar to it, and the Court declines to give it a different meaning.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent judge did not err. Applying its earlier rulings in People versus Lopez, People versus Feliciano, and People versus Tabunares, the Court held that criminal liability for mere possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition was temporarily lifted during the surrender period. The executive orders did not legalize possession permanently, but they suspended the punishment for mere possession, while preserving liability for one who uses the firearm or carries it on his person except for the purpose of surrendering it.

On the second issue, the Court held that the information was fatally defective. The use or the carrying of the firearm was an ingredient, if not the sole ingredient, of the offense, and so it had to be alleged and proved. The Court quoted its ruling in People versus Austria:

It should be noted that the court dismissed the first case for illegal possession of firearm upon the sole ground that the information did not contain facts sufficient to constitute an offense. Bear in mind that information was filed in connection with Republic Act No. 482 which exempts from criminal liability persons found in possession of unlicensed firearms unless the firearm is used or carried in his person by the possessor.

On the third issue, the Court held that the prosecution cannot cure the defect by evidence. The presentation of evidence cannot validate a void information or prove an offense which does not legally exist. The Court acknowledged that the accused was identified with the violent arm of the past regime, but declared that it is not swayed by appellations or opprobriums, and that its duty is to accord every man due process and the equal protection of the laws.

Doctrine

During the period fixed by executive order for the surrender of unlicensed firearms and ammunition, mere possession is not punishable; only the use of the firearm, or the carrying of it on the person other than for surrender, is punished. Because those acts are the very ingredients of the offense, an information for illegal possession must allege that the accused used the firearm or carried it on his person at the time of apprehension. Absent such allegations, the information charges no offense, and evidence at trial cannot cure it.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the orders of the respondent judge dismissing the information and denying reconsideration were affirmed, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: mere possession during the surrender period is not a crime, and the information must allege use or carrying on the person. Examiners use this case to test the sufficiency of an information and the temporary suspension of criminal liability under firearms amnesty orders.