PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO GUEVARRA Y CAPILLAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant Danilo Guevarra was charged before the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch XX,^[1]
with the violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, allegedly committed as
follows:

“That on or about April 14, 1987, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully and unlawfully keep,
possess and/or acquire one (1) revolver Cal. 22 (Paltik)
with eight (8) rounds of cal. 22 live ammunitions without first securing the
necessary permit and/or license therefor from the
proper authorities.”^[2]

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged.  The trial court, however, after
an evaluation of the evidence presented, found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua,
with costs de oficio.  The firearm and ammunition were ordered
confiscated in favor of the Government.^[3]

The prosecution’s version of the facts of the case is synthesized
by the trial court as follows:

“x x
x Rodrigo Hilario in
the statement taken by the police alleges that around 6:00 of April 14, 1987,
he came from his brother Gregorio Hilario at Gerona
St., Tondo. 
While he was going home, the accused Danilo Guevarra tagged along with him and confronted Rodrigo Hilario with the statement as to whether he was ‘siga‘, meaning brave. 
That time, the accused was holding a firearm.  Rodrigo Hilario
answered the accused that he was not brave. 
At that instant, the accused was apprehended by Pat. Rizalde Gascon
and Pat. W. Reyes of WPD, Manila,
upon the complaint of Rodrigo Hilario, who was
threatened by said accused Danilo Guevarra
with a firearm (pistol).  Pat. Gascon testified that this Rodrigo Hilario
sought his help regarding the person with a gun at Dandan St., Tondo, Manila
on April 14, 1987.  Consequently, he arrested the suspect, the
accused Danilo Guevarra.  Likewise he testified that there was an
attempt to settle the case between accused and complainant Rodrigo Hilario.  But in view of the firearm taken from the accused, already marked
as Exh. D and the live
ammunition Exh. D, the case was not
settled.  As a matter of fact, the handle
of the firearm bears identification mark as DCG which stands for Danilo C. Guevarra.  On cross-examination by Atty. Liberato Cabaron, CLAO, counsel
for accused, the witness maintained that he arrested the accused Danilo Guevarra upon the
complaint of Rodrigo Hilario.”^[4]

On the other hand, the defense narrates a different version:

“x x x The
accused testified on direct examination by Atty. Cabaron,
CLAO, that in the house of Rodrigo Hilario, a gambling
known as Lucky 9 was held on April 14, 1987 in the evening.  There were ten persons who were
gambling.  Thereafter, there was
trouble.  Then, a certain Eddie got mad
because he was chased by a certain Mang Diego who
turned out to be Rodrigo Hilario.  Mang Diego (Rodrigo
Hilario) lifted a chair and was about to hit a
certain Eddie who got mad, then this accused Danilo Guevarra pacified Mang Diego or
Rodrigo Hilario. 
In his attempt to pacify Rodrigo Hilario,
accused Danilo Guevarra was
able to hit Rodrigo Hilario and he boxed the said
Rodrigo Hilario and left the house of Rodrigo Hilario.  Later on, a
certain Jetjet fetched the accused telling him that
his wife arrived.  This Jetjet was later on identified as Cornelia Calilong Halili.  They boarded a tricycle in fetching his
wife.  While inside the tricycle, a
Patrolman came over and hit him with a gun at the back of the side car.  This patrolman turned out to be Pat. Gascon and the accused testified further that he was mauled
while being arrested by Pat. Gascon.  The accused at that
moment while being mauled testified furthermore, that he did not say anything
against Pat. Gascon.  Later on, the
accused was brought to Precinct I, North Bay,
Tondo.  While
inside Precinct I, WPD, Jetjet, alias Cornelia Calilong Halili shouted, ‘what is
the fault of my companion’, referring to accused Danilo Guevarra.  At that instant, Rodrigo Hilario
followed the accused to the police, Precinct I. 
Pat. Gascon asked accused what case and the
accused told him the quarrel with Mang Diego or
Rodrigo Hilario on April 15, 1987. 
Accused further testified that Pat. Gascon
asked P1,000.00 so that he can be released.  Accused answered that he has no money.  So, the case was filed on April 20, 1987.  Likewise, the accused testified that Pat. Gascon used to be in the house of Rodrigo Hilario, the complainant. 
That was the reason why accused came to know Pat. Gascon.  On cross-examination, Fiscal Hernandez was able to elicit from the accused
that accused has no job and during the date of the incident he was only about
one month old in the City of Manila
as he came from Iloilo.  His only job is gambling or playing Lucky 9
in the house of Rodrigo Hilario.”^[5]

Accused-appellant raises the following assignment of errors in
this appeal:

1.  The court a quo
gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite the effectivity of Executive Order No. 107 which made the
information fatally defective and void;

2.  The court a quo
gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant when the prosecution failed
to prove the alleged absence of license or permit, assuming but not admitting
that the firearm and the ammunition were in his possession;

3.  Assuming but not
admitting that the accused-appellant was in possession of the firearm and
ammunition, the court a quo gravely erred in admitting the same
in evidence as these were taken in violation of the constitutional right of the
accused-appellant against unreasonable searches and seizures; and

4.  The court a quo
gravely erred in not finding that the accused-appellant was a victim of a
frame-up.^[6]

Appellant’s plea for reversal is well-taken.  Adopting the same view, the Solicitor
General, filing a manifestation and motion in lieu of appellee’s
brief, recommends that this case filed against appellant in Criminal Case No.
87-54006 be dismissed as the same is premised on a void
information.

At the time of the commission of the crime, or on April 14, 1987,
Executive Order No. 107, dated December 24, 1986, which gave holders and
possessors of unlicensed firearms and ammunition a period of six (6) months
from its date of effectivity within which to
surrender the same to the proper authorities without incurring criminal
liability therefor, was indeed in legal force and
effect.  In fact, its effectivity
was extended to December 31, 1987
by Executive Order No. 222.  While said
executive orders did not have the effect of legalizing the unlicensed
possession of firearms and ammunition, they did temporarily lift criminal
liability for such unauthorized possession.^[7]

Executive Order No. 107, however, is not without exceptions, since it does not bar prosecution of
a person for illegal possession of loose or unlicensed firearms, ammunition or
explosives if the same are carried outside his residence, unless it is for the
purpose of surrendering the same as evidenced by a prior written authority
issued by the proper official to transport the same for said purpose, or if he
commits an offense with the use of said unlicensed firearm, ammunition or
explosive.

The pivotal inquiry, therefore, boils down to these
propositions:  Assuming that appellant
was indeed in possession of the firearms and ammunition, is it necessary for
the prosecution, in order to make appellant liable for the offense, to allege
in the information that appellant either brought the same out of his residence
not for the purpose of surrendering them or that he used them in the commission
of another offense?  Corollarily,
if neither of the exceptions were alleged in the information, may they be
proved just the same during the trial?

The cited case of People vs. Asuncion,
etc., et al., ante, has already provided the answers to
these queries in this manner:

“x x x In People
vs. Lopez (79 Phil. 658 [1947]), the Court already ruled that,
under Republic Act No. 4, the use or the carrying of firearms and/or ammunition
was an ingredient, if not the sole ingredient, of the offense, i.e., the very
acts which were punished, subject to certain conditions, and hence, should be
alleged and proved.

“In People vs. Austria (94 Phil. 897
[1953]), the Court also ruled that in order that an information charging
illegal posses­sion of firearm and ammunition, under Republic Act No. 482, may
be deemed sufficient, it must allege that the accused was using the unlicensed
firearm or carrying it in his person at the time he was apprehended by the authorities with said firearm.  x x x” (Citations in parentheses added).

It bears noting that the laws referred to
in the above-mentioned cases, Republic Acts Nos. 4 and 482, likewise provided as
exceptions wherein criminal liability would attach (1) the use of a firearm or
ammunition or (2) the carrying thereof by the person except for the purpose of
surrendering the same.

With regard to the corollary question, the Asuncion
case disposed of this by reiterating the rule that the presentation of evidence
cannot have the effect of validating a void information, or proving an offense
which does not legally exist.  Where, as
in this case, the information is not merely defective, but it does not charge
any offense at all, technically speaking, that information does not exist in
contemplation of law.

On the foregoing considerations, we no longer find it necessary
to rule upon the other errors assigned by appellant.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, without prejudice to the filing of the proper
information in this case.  Let a copy of
this decision be furnished the Honorable Secretary of Justice for his
information and appropriate action.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Presided over by Judge Doroteo Caneba.

^[2]
Rollo, 6.

^[3]
Ibid., 21.

^[4]
Ibid., 17-18.

^[5]
Ibid., 18-19.

^[6]
Brief for Accused-Appellant, 1; Rollo, 40.

^[7]
People vs. Asuncion, etc., et
al., 161 SCRA 490 (1988).