232 SCRA 716

People

Vs.

De Garcia

Facts:

The accused was charged for violation of P.D 1866 in furtherance of Rebellion. The
incident happened during the height of December 1989 coup d’état. The accused raided the
EURO CAR Sales Office in which the accused in possession of five(5) bundies of C-4 dynamites,
Six(6) cartoons of M-16 ammunition at each and one hundred (100) bottles of Molotov bombs.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the accused is guilty of violation of P.D 1866.

2. Whether the search is legal.

HELD:

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and sentenced the
accused-appellant to serve the penalty of reclusion perpertua on the following grounds:

1. Ownership is not essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition

since what the law requires is merely possession which includes not only physical
possession but also constructive possession.
2. When the crime is punished by a special law, intent to omit a crime is not necessary
but only the act prohibited by the special law.
3. In order that a person may be found guilty of a violation of P.D 1866, it is sufficient
that the accused had no authority or license to possess a firearm, that he intended
to possess the same, even such possession was made in good faith and without
criminal intent.
4. The qualified offense of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion
under P.D 1866 is distinct from the crime of rebellion punished under Articles 134
and 135 of R.P.C which the latter was statue was erroneously and improperly used
by the trial court as a basis of the degree of liability and the penalty to be imposed
upon the accused-appellant.
5. Another issue in this case is the validity of the search and seizure conducted by the
military. Admittedly the military operative who raided the Eurocar Sales Office were
not armed with a search warrant however, their acts falls under the exceptions to
the prohibitions against a warrantless search. There was more than sufficient
probable cause to warrant their action.
301 SCRA 66

People of the Philippines

Vs.

Octavio Mendoza Y. LANDCHICO

Case:

On November 11, 1988 in Las Penas, Metro Manila the accused did and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in possession, control and direct custody a firearm, one .38
caliber revolver, Colt with serial number 41001 and four(4) live ammunitions used in the crime
of parricide, without first securing the necessary license or permit.

Principle:

Illegal possession of firearms; Aggravating Circumstances; Republic Act No.8294 which

took effect on July 7, 1997 amended Presidential Decree no. 1866 and the law now merely
considers the use of unlicensed firearms as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide
and not as a separate offense.

Doctrine :

Although the prosecution duly established that the crime of illegal possession of
firearms under P.D 1866 was committed, fortunately for accused- appellant, R. A 8294 which
took effect July 7,1997 amended the said decree and the law now merely considers the use of
an unlicensed firearms as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide and not as a
separate offense. In which , accused-appealed may be held liable only for parricide with the
special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm.
304 SCRA 384

People

Vs.

Datukan Basil

Facts:

The accused Datukan Bansil was caught in an operation by the WPD in possession of a
.45 caliber pistol with an extended magazine and live ammunition, without any license and
permit to carry. The accused was charged of the violation of P.D 1866.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused Datukan Bansil be held liable of the crime charged?

Held:

The accused Datukan Bansil was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
P.D 1866 and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA.
216 SCRA 431

People

Vs.

Santiago Evaristo

Facts:

Santiago Evaristo and Noli Carillo being private persons not authorized by law did then
and there unlawfully manufacture, repair and kept in their possession one caliber 38 revolver,
two 12 gauge home-made shot guns, one 22 caliber revolver, ammunitions and some tools and
instruments in the manufacture and repair of said firearms without any permit or license from
impotent authority.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused Santiago Evaristo and Noli Carillo be held liable for illegal
possession of firearms in Violation of P.D 1866.

Held:

The court found the accused Santiago Evaristo and Noli Carillo GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT for illegal possession of firearms as defined in P. D 1866.

The court also orders the forfeiture of the firearms and other incidental paraphernalia in
favor of the Philippine National Police(PNP) and to be disposed of in accordance with the law.
222 SCRA 557

People

Vs.

Felimon Ramos

Facts:

Felimon Ramos, Antonio Contreras, John Doe, Rene Sayas, Peter Doe, Boy Bayag, Charlie
Doe, Bodoy and Richard Doe and Domingo Balbas are involved in series of robbery and were file
with 4 charges in the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City, namely: Robbery in band Violation
of P.D 1866, Violation of R.A 6539 and for Simple Robbery.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused were guilty of the charges filed?

Held:

The trial court promulgated its joint decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crimes charged.

Rendered judgments are as follow:

1) For robbery in Band each of them were sentenced to suffer RECLUSION PERPETUA and
to jointly reimbursement of Php. 58,500.00.
2) For violation of P.D 18866, as amended, Felimon Ramos was sentenced to suffer 17 yrs,
4 months and 1 day as minimum to 20yrs. As maximum.
3) For violation of R.A 6539, each of them were sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 14yrs,
8 months and 1 day to 17 yrs.
4) For simple robbery, each of them were sentenced to suffer 4yrs, 2 months and 1 day
and reimbursement of Php. 10,780.00.
GROUP 1 - LEGAL RESEARCH
1. CHARLES DE JESUS
2. JERSON GIBA
3. CARLO AGAWA
4. MARJOHN BUENAOBRA
5. JIMSON FULGAR