MENDOZA V.

PEOPLE prosecution of which crime are: (1) the existence of subject

G.R. No. 234196, November 21, 2018
FACTS: An Information was filed before the RTC of Tanauan
City, Batangas charging the petitioner for violation of P.D.
No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294. At around 11:45pm
of August 31, 2006, the above-accused without authority of
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
has in his possession, custody and control, without having
secured the necessary license and/or permit from the proper
authorities to possess the same:
 One (1) Ranger caliber 45 pistol (Imperial Defense
Service) with Serial No. C02009;
 Two (2) magazines with nine (9) pieces of live
ammunitions and three (3) pieces of empty shells of
the same caliber
PROSECUTION: During a checkpoint, Police Officer 1 Ryan
Pagcaliwagan (PO1 Pagcaliwagan), PO1 Celso Torres, and
PO1 Fheljun Calalo flagged down a motorcycle as it had no
license plate and its three occupants were not wearing a
helmet. The occupants were later identified as Julius Opeña
(Opeña), the owner of the motorcycle, Jeffrey Coral (Coral),
and herein petitioner who was then driving the motorcycle.
The petitioner denied any criminal liability and by way of
defense claimed that the firearm, magazines, and live
ammunition were the product of an illegal search and thus
were illegally obtained in his possession.
RTC: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged, the court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty
of imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day to eight
(8) years of prision mayor and to pay a fine of Thirty
Thousand Pesos (Php 30,000.00). It found untenable the
petitioner's defense of illegal search and seizure as well as
lack of knowledge as to his possession of the seized items,
concluding the search was incidental to a lawful arrest. The
RTC held that PO1 Pagcaliwagan was correct in flagging
down, arresting, searching, and seizing the subject items
from the petitioner after seeing the latter withdrew a gun and
hid it under his bag.
firearm; and (2) the fact that the accused who possessed or
owned the same does not have the corresponding license for
it. Verily, ownership is not an essential element of the
crime of illegal possession of firearms. What is merely
required is either actual or constructive possession coupled
with  animus possidendi or intent to possess.
While the existence of the firearm and the absence by the
petitioner of the license to own the same may be conceded,
the absence on the part of the petitioner of animus
possidendi is sufficient to cause his acquittal.
To be convicted of illegal possession of firearms it is
sufficient that the accused had no authority or license to
possess a firearm, and that he intended to possess the
same, even if such possession was made in good faith and
without criminal intent. Although there is physical or
constructive possession, for as long as the animus
possidendi is absent, there is no offense committed.
Animus possidendi is a concept that eludes specific
standards to indicate its existence. Being a state of
mind, animus possidendi is determined on a case to case
basis, taking into consideration the prior and
contemporaneous acts of the accused and the surrounding
circumstances.32 "What exists in the realm of thought is often
disclosed in a range of action.
Knowledge is an essential component of intent. Without
awareness or knowledge of the existence of the subject
firearm and ammunitions, it cannot be said that the petitioner
has the intent to possess.
PETITION WAS GRANTED. ACQUITTED.

CA: Affirmed the lower court's decision, with Modification

petitioner is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment ranging from SIX (6) YEARS
of prision correccional in its maximum period, as minimum, to
SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT MONTHS and ONE DAY of prision
mayor minimum in its medium period, as maximum and to
pay a fine of P30,000.00. There was a valid search and
seizure of the subject item, which is done pursuant to a lawful
arrest, the initial violation for the absence of license plate and
helmet that justified the search and seizure in this case.

Hence this petition.

ISSUE: W/N the elements for the crime charged are present
in the case at bar.

RULING: NO. The petitioner and his companions were

flagged down during a checkpoint after the police officers
noticed that the motorcycle which they were riding bore no
license plate and the riders are not wearing any helmet. The
commission of a traffic violation does not justify the arrest of
the petitioner. Under Section 2925 of R.A. No. 4136 or The
Land Transportation Code, such violation merely warrant the
confiscation of the offender's driver's license.

The petitioner was indicted of the crime of illegal possession

of firearms, as defined and penalized by P.D. No. 1866, as
amended by R.A. No. 8294. The elements for the
ERWIN LIBO-ON V PEOPLE
G.R. No. 234196, November 21, 2018
FACTS: Erwin Libo-o Dela Cruz, an on-the-job trainee of an
inter-island vessel, was at the pier of the Cebu Domestic Port
to go home to Iloilo. He allegedly left his bag on the floor with
a porter while he purchased a ticket.   without a warrant under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules
X-ray machine operator, Cutie Pie Flores, saw the
impression of what appears to be three firearms inside his
bag. She then called the attention of baggage inspector,
Archie Igot, who asked Dela Cruz whether he was the owner
of the bag. Dela Cruz answered in the affirmative and
consented to Igot’s manual inspection of the bag. Igot called
Port Police Officer Abregana and subsequently inspected the
bag. The following items were found: three revolvers, NBI
clearance, seaman’s book, other personal items, and four
live ammunitions placed inside the cylinder. When asked
whether he has the proper documents for the firearms, he
answered in the negative.  bearing, carrying, or transporting firearms or other deadly
He was then arrested and charged with violation of Republic
Act No. 8294 for illegal possession of firearms.  place."161 This court also ruled that under the Omnibus
Subsequently, he was charged with the violation of
Commission on Elections Resolution No. 7764, in relation to
Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Gun Ban). He
claimed that the firearms were planted inside his bag by the
porter or anyone who could have accessed his bag while he
was purchasing a ticket.
RTC: Found Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating the Gun Ban; held that the search conducted by the
port authorities was reasonable and, thus, valid. Hence,
accused is deemed to have been caught in flagrante delicto
when the firearms and ammunitions were revealed from his
bag, justifying his arrest even without a warrant
under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure.  Petitioner merely claims that someone must have planted the
CA: affirmed the trial court’s judgment  identify who this person could have been and he did not state
ISSUE: W/N accused’ defense was meritorious.
HELD: NO. The port personnel's actions proceed from the
authority and policy to ensure the safety of travelers and
vehicles within the port. At this point, petitioner already
submitted himself and his belongings to inspection by placing
his bag in the x-ray scanning machine.
The presentation of petitioner's bag for x-ray scanning was
voluntary. Petitioner had the choice of whether to present the
bag or not. He had the option not to travel if he did not want
his bag scanned or inspected. X-ray machine scanning and
actual inspection upon showing of probable cause that a
crime is being or has been committed are part of reasonable
security regulations to safeguard the passengers passing
through ports or terminals. Probable cause is reasonable
ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently
strong in themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that
the person accused is guilty of the offense charged.
A warrantless search is presumed to be unreasonable.
However, this court lays down the exceptions where
warrantless searches are deemed legitimate: (1) warrantless
search incidental to a lawful arrest; (2) seizure in "plain view";
(3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless
search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7)
exigent and emergency circumstances.
Given the circumstances obtaining here, the court finds the
search conducted by the port authorities reasonable and,
therefore, not violative of the accused's constitutional rights.
Hence, when the search of the bag of the accused revealed
the firearms and ammunitions, accused is deemed to have
been caught in flagrante delicto, justifying his arrest even
of Criminal Procedure. The firearms and ammunitions
obtained in the course of such valid search are thus
admissible as evidence against [the] accused.
Petitioner is now precluded from claiming an invalid
warrantless search when he voluntarily submitted to the
search on his person. In violations of the Gun Ban, the
accused must be "in possession of a firearm . . . outside of
his residence within the period of the election gun ban
imposed by the COMELEC sans authority:
Elements for a violation of the Gun Ban: "1) the person is
weapons; 2) such possession occurs during the election
period; and, 3) the weapon is carried in a public
Election Code, the burden to show that he or she has a
written authority to possess a firearm is on the accused.
Petitioner failed to negate the prosecution's evidence that he
had animus possidendi or the intent to possess the illegal
firearms.
Courts must also weigh the accused’s claim against the
totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution. This
includes determination of: (1) the motive of whoever allegedly
planted the illegal firearms(s); (2) whether there was
opportunity to plant the illegal firearms(s); and (3)
reasonableness of the situation creating the opportunity.
firearms when he left his bag with the porter. He did not
any motive for this person to plant the firearms in his
possession, even if there was indeed an opportunity to plant
the firearms.
However, this court is mindful that, owing to the nature of his
work, petitioner was a frequent traveler who is well-versed
with port security measure. We cannot accept that an
average reasonable person aware of travel security
measures would leave his belongings with a stranger for a
relatively long period of time. Also, records show that
petitioner had only (1) bag. There was no evidence to show
that a robust young man like petitioner would have been
need of the porter’s services. The defense did not identify nor
present this porter with whom petitioner left his bag.
Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294 is express in its terms
that a person may not be convicted for illegal possession of
firearms if another crime was committed. This court also held
that the unlicensed firearm need not be actually used in the
course of committing the other crime for the application of
Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294.
DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated September 8,
2012 and the Resolution dated August 23, 2013 in CA-GR
CEB CR No. 01606 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
Petitioner Erwin Libo-On Dela Cruz is sentenced to
imprisonment of one (1) year as minimum to two (2) years as
maximum in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence
Law.
xxx