Fajardo v.

People
G.R. No. 190889| January 10, 2011 | Definition of Possession| J.B.L. Reyes | Da Silva Petitioner’s apparent liability for illegal possession of part of a firearm can only
Petitioner: Elenita Fajardo proceed from the assumption that one of the thrown receivers matches the gun seen
Respondents: People of the Philippines tucked in the waistband of her shorts earlier that night. Unfortunately, the
prosecution failed to convert such assumption into concrete evidence

Recit-Ready: Elenita Fajardo was charged with illegal possession of firearms. The
policemen arrived at her home after receiving complaints of people drinking liquor Doctrine: The rule is that ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession
while indiscriminately firing guns in Park Homes Subdivision. When the policemen of firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession which
arrived at Elenita’s house, they saw Elenita tuck a .45 caliber pistol into her shorts as includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive possession or the
she ran inside and locked her door. While this happened, one of those who was with subjection of the thing to one’s control and management. This has to be so if the
her, fired shots at the policemen. To avoid a potentially violent altercation, the manifest intent of the law is to be effective. The same evils, the same perils to public
policemen cordoned of the area. As they were doing so, they saw Valerio, a security, which the law penalizes exist whether the unlicensed holder of a prohibited
bodyguard of Elenita, throwing receivers from the roof of Elenita’s house. Eventually, weapon be its owner or a borrower. To accomplish the object of this law[,] the
a search warrant was issued and served on Elenita, who allowed the policemen to proprietary concept of the possession can have no bearing whatsoever.
search her home for the firearms described therein. Eventually, the policemen were
able to find and confiscate the firearms described, along with the two receivers FACTS:
Valerio threw from atop Elenita’s home. Elenita argues that she should not have been 1. Fajardo was charged with illegal possession of firearms.
convicted, since her conviction rested on her possession of the receivers, which she 2. It is alleged in this case that the police came to know of the alleged illegal
argued should not have been admissible in evidence since these were never actually possession from residents in Park Homes Subdivision were concerned over
in her possession. So the issue is whether Elenita’s conviction is correct. Ruling on a group of people drinking liquor and indiscriminately firing guns
the issue of possession, the Court cited the case of People v. De Gracia which says 3. They saw Elenita tucking a .45 caliber pistol into her shorts and running into
the rule is that ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of the house upon their arrival at the scene. Meanwhile, one of the others who
firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession which were present, fired shots at the policemen.
includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive possession or the 4. Elenita locked her door, and in order to prevent any violent commotion, the
subjection of the thing to one's control and management. This has to be so if the policemen desisted from entering her house, and instead cordoned off the
manifest intent of the law is to be effective. The same evils, the same perils to public area.
security, which the law penalizes exist whether the unlicensed holder of a prohibited 5. As the policemen were cordoning the perimeter, they saw Valerio, a
weapon be its owner or a borrower. To accomplish the object of this law the bodyguard of Elenita, throwing receivers (part of a gun) from the roof of
proprietary concept of the possession can have no bearing whatsoever. Elenita was Elenita.
neither in physical nor constructive possession of the subject receivers. The 6. Elenita tried to negotiate for the policemen to leave, but no agreement
testimony of SPO2 Nava clearly bared that he only saw Valerio on top of the house materialized.
when the receivers were thrown. None of the witnesses saw petitioner holding the 7. A search warrant for the following firearms was eventually issued:
receivers, before or during their disposal. a. Two (2) pieces of Short Magazine of M16 Armalite Rifle;
b. Thirty five (35) pieces of live M16 ammos 5.56 Caliber; and
At the very least, her possession of the receivers was merely incidental because c. Fourteen (14) pieces of live ammos of Caliber 45 pistol.
Valerio, the one in actual physical possession, was seen at the rooftop of petitioner’s 8. Upon serving the warrant upon the accused, the accused consented to the
house. Absent any evidence pointing to Elenita’s participation, knowledge or consent search of her home, and the policemen were able to find the firearms
in Valerio’s actions, she cannot be held liable for illegal possession of the receivers. described by the warrant.
 9. When Elenita failed to provide any documentation authorizing the house when the receivers were thrown. None of the witnesses saw petitioner holding
possession of said firearms, the firearms were confiscated, and Elenita was the receivers, before or during their disposal.
charged with illegal possession of firearms, or violation of P.D. 1866
10. It is argued here by Elenita that her conviction by the court a quo was At the very least, her possession of the receivers was merely incidental because
wrongful because the receivers should not have been ruled admissible in Valerio, the one in actual physical possession, was seen at the rooftop of petitioner’s
evidence against her, since the same were never in her possession. house. Absent any evidence pointing to Elenita’s participation, knowledge or consent
in Valerio’s actions, she cannot be held liable for illegal possession of the receivers.
ISSUE/S:
Petitioner’s apparent liability for illegal possession of part of a firearm can only
W/N Elenita’s conviction is correct - NO proceed from the assumption that one of the thrown receivers matches the gun seen
tucked in the waistband of her shorts earlier that night. Unfortunately, the prosecution
failed to convert such assumption into concrete evidence.

RATIO:

Issue 1: Citing the case of People v. De Gracia, the Court said that the rule is that
ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession which includes not only
actual physical possession but also constructive possession or the subjection of the
thing to one's control and management. This has to be so if the manifest intent of the
law is to be effective. The same evils, the same perils to public security, which the law
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 whatsoever.

In the present case, a distinction should be made between criminal intent and intent
to possess. While mere possession, without criminal intent, is sufficient to convict a
person for illegal possession of a firearm, it must still be shown that there was
animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the part of the accused. Such intent to
possess is, however, without regard to any other criminal or felonious intent which the
accused may have harbored in possessing the firearm. Criminal intent here refers to
the intention of the accused to commit an offense with the use of an unlicensed
firearm. This is not important in convicting a person under Presidential Decree No.
1866. Hence, in order that one may be found guilty of a violation of the decree, 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.

Elenita was neither in physical nor constructive possession of the subject receivers.
The testimony of SPO2 Nava clearly bared that he only saw Valerio on top of the