–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

People v Estoista
[G.R. No. L-5793] | [August 27, 1953] | [TUASON, J]

Plaintiff-appellee: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Defendant-appellant: ALBERTO ESTOISTA

Doctrine: Temporary, incidental, casual or harmless possession or control of a firearm is not a violation of a statute
prohibiting the possessing or carrying of this kind of weapon.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

CASE SUMMARY

Trigger word/s: rifle, possess

FACTS: Defendant Estoisa was found guilty of illegal possession of firearm and sentenced to 1-year imprisonment by
the CFI. The firearm was a rifle that belonged to his father, Bruno, who held a legal permit for it. Bruno lent the rifle to
defendant who is a “sharp shooter” and “shoots better”. Defendant took a shot at a wild rooster in the family plantation
but accidentally hit Diragon Dima, a laborer. Defendant appealed from the judgment on the ground that is contrary to
the ruling in US v Samson and that the penalty of 5 to 10-year imprisonment provided by RA No. 4 is cruel and
unusual.
HELD: Defendant’s conviction is lawful. His holding or carrying of his father's gun was not incidental, casual,
temporary or harmless. Ruling in US v Samson is not applicable because unlike the defendant Estoisa, Samson
carried the gun solely in obedience to its owner’s order or request without any inferable intention to use it as a
weapon. Imprisonment should be increased to a period of 5 years based on RA No. 4. However, SC ruled that
considering the degree of defendant’s malice, full application of the law would be too harsh and recommended to the
President through the Secretary of Justice that the imprisonment imposed be reduced to 6 months.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
FACTS and CASE TRAIL
(Kindly see above since decision is less than 5 pages, excluding Syllabus)

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
ISSUES & HELD

1. Whether Defendant’s conviction is lawful - YES

 Defendant:
o United States vs. Samson - held that carrying a gun by order of the owner does not constitute illegal
possession of firearm.
 Facts: A shotgun and nine cartridges which belonged to one Pablo Padilla, who had a proper
permit to possess them, were seized by the police from Samson while walking in a town.
Padilla was to use the shotgun in hunting that day and, as he was coming along on
horseback, sent Samson on ahead.
 SC:
o Republic Act No. 4, amending section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code, in its pertinent
provision is directed against any person who possesses any firearm, ammunition therefor, etc.
 Meaning of the word "possesses"
- employed in its broad sense to include "carries" and "holds." This is necessary for the
effectivity of the manifest intent of the Act
- The same evils, the same perils to public security, which the Act penalizes exist whether the
unlicensed holder of a prohibited weapon be its owner or a borrower.
- To accomplish the object of this law the proprietary concept of the possession can have
no bearing whatever. "
- Ownership of the weapon is necessary only insofar as the ownership may tend to establish
the guilt or intention of the accused."
o United States vs. Samson inapplicable
 The implied holding in that case that the intention to possess is an essential element of a
violation of the Firearms Law was not intended to imply title or right to the weapon to the
exclusion of everyone else. The court did not mean only intention to own but also
intention to use.
  Control or dominion of the use of the weapon by the holder regardless of ownership is, of
necessity, the essential factor.
 The rule laid down by United States courts — rule which we here adopt — is that
temporary, incidental, casual or harmless possession or control of a firearm is not a
violation of a statute prohibiting the possessing or carrying of this kind of weapon

ICAB:
- Defendant’s case does not meet the above test. His holding or carrying of his father's
gun was not incidental, casual, temporary or harmless. Away from his father's sight and
control, he carried the gun for the only purpose of using it, as in fact he did, with fatal
consequences.
- Although Samson had physical control of his employer's shotgun and cartridges, his
possession thereof was undoubtedly harmless and innocent, as evidenced by the fact that,
apparently, he bore them in full view of the people he met and of the authorities. Unlike the
defendant Estoisa, Samson carried the gun solely in obedience to its owner’s order or request
without any inferable intention to use it as a weapon.
2. Whether the penalty of 5 to 10-year imprisonment provided by RA No. 4 is cruel and unusual – NO
 SC: The rampant lawlessness against property, person, and even the very security of the Government,
directly traceable in large measure to promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons, justify
imprisonment which in normal circumstances might appear excessive.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
RULING: in favor of Defendant.

The sentence imposed by the lower court is much below the penalty authorized by Republic Act No. 4. The judgment
is therefore modified so as to sentence the accused to imprisonment for five years. However, considering the degree
of malice of the defendant, application of the law to its full extent would be too harsh and, accordingly, it is ordered
that copy of this decision be furnished to the President, thru the Secretary of Justice, with the recommendation that
the imprisonment herein imposed be reduced to six months. The appellant will pay the costs of both instances.

NOTES

 December 3, 1953 Resolution (TUASON, J)

On Court’s recommendation to reduce period of imprisonment to 6 months
o Court merely considered defendant’s intention and the degree of his malice.
o This was not because the Court deems unconstitutional the penalty of 5-10-year imprisonment
provided by RA No. 4.
 “Having in mind the necessity for a radical measure and the public interest at stake, we do not
believe that five years' confinement for possessing firearms, even as applied to appellant's
and similar cases, can be said to be cruel and unusual, barbarous, or excessive to the extent
of being shocking to public conscience.”
 The validity on constitutional grounds of the Act was only raised on appeal
On the lawfulness of the confiscation of the gun under RA No. 4
o The confiscation of the gun is in accordance with Sec. 1 of RA No. 4
o This provision does not say that firearms unlawfully possessed or carried are to be confiscated only if
they belong to the defendant, nor is such intention deducible from the language of the act.
o Except where the lawful owner was innocent of, or without fault in, the use of his property by another,
confiscation accords with the legislative intent.
o Due process of law is not violated because ownership or possession of firearms is not a natural right
protected by the Constitution.
 Above the right to own property is the inherent attribute of sovereignty - the police power of
the state to protect its citizens and to provide for the safety and good order of society.
 Pursuant to the exercise of police power, the right to private property may be limited,
restricted, and impaired so as to promote the general welfare, public order and safety.
 The power of the legislature to prohibit the possession of deadly weapon carries with it the
power to provide for the confiscation or forfeiture of weapons unlawfully used or allowed by
the licensed owner to be used.