FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 253930. July 13, 2022 ]

PAULO CASTIL Y ALVERO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
HERNANDO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assails the October 14, 2019 Decision[2] and the
October 9, 2020 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 42335,
which affirmed the March 21, 2018 Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon
City, Branch 215 finding petitioner Paulo Castil y Alvero (petitioner) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms under Section 28, paragraphs
(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 10591,[5] otherwise known as the "Comprehensive
Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act."

The Factual Antecedents

This case arose from an Information[6] charging petitioner with violation of Section 28,
paragraphs (a) and (e) of RA 10591, thus:

That on or about the 10th day of July, 2015, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said
accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1)
Norinco cal. 9mm, loaded with five (5) live ammunitions, without first having
secured the necessary license/permit issued by the proper authorities.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.[8] Proceedings ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

At around 10:00 p.m. of July 9, 2015, a confidential informant (CI) tipped off the Station
Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Group operatives of Talipapa Police Station,
Quezon City that a certain Sandra Young[9] (Young), who had been a subject of past
surveillance operations on illegal drug activity in Quezon City, was selling illegal drugs at
Certeza Compound, Luzon Ave., Brgy. Culiat, Quezon City.[10] The police chief
immediately formed a buy-bust operation team composed of Police Officer 1 John Paul
Rebustes (PO1 Rebustes) as poseur-buyer, and Senior Police Officer 1 Johnny Mahilum and
Police Officer 1 Erwin Fegason as back-ups.[11] A marked P500-bill was given to PO1
Rebustes.[12]

The team, together with the CI, proceeded to the Certeza Compound. Upon arrival, the CI
received a phone call from Young instructing them to meet her on Commonwealth Ave.
corner San Simon St., Brgy. Holy Spirit.[13] Considering that the place was under a different
jurisdiction, the team dropped by the Batasan Hills Police Station No. 6 to coordinate.[14]

The team arrived at the new designated area and waited for Young to arrive.[15] The CI
received another phone call from Young instructing them to meet her at the agreed-upon
spot.[16]

At around 12:00 a.m., a black Honda CRY arrived driven by Young and accompanied by
petitioner.[17] Then, the CI and PO1 Rebustes were ordered to board the back seat of the
vehicle.[18]

Inside the vehicle, Young ordered PO1 Rebustes to give payment to petitioner, who in turn
handed one heat-sealed plastic sachet of suspected shabu to PO1 Rebustes.[19]

Unable to execute the pre-arranged signal, PO1 Rebustes decided to introduce himself as a
police officer, and attempted to arrest Young and petitioner.[20] Young floored the accelerator
and sped off.[21] The CI managed to jump from the car, while petitioner wrestled with PO1
Rebustes.[22] At the Quezon City Circle, Young rammed the car into a gutter and got stuck.
[23] Young was able to escape, while petitioner and PO1 Rebustes continued wrestling each

other.[24]

The back-up officers then arrived and helped PO1 Rebustes apprehend petitioner.[25] PO1
Rebustes conducted a body search on petitioner and recovered from his waist a Norinco
caliber 9mm gun with serial number 160447275 loaded with five pieces of live ammunition.
[26] The search also yielded two small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing

suspected shabu.[27] The vehicle was likewise searched and two small heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets containing suspected shabu were recovered from the dashboard
drawer.[28]

The police officers brought petitioner to the police station. PO1 Rebustes marked the firearm
with JPR/PC-10-07-15, and the ammunitions with JPR/PC-2-10-07-15, JPR/PC-3-10-07-15,
JPR/PC-4-10-07-15, JPR/PC-5-10-07-15, JPR/PC-6-10-07-15 in the presence of petitioner.
[29] During trial, PO1 Rebustes was able to identify the loaded firearm as the same one he

recovered from petitioner based on the markings he made.[30]

During his cross-examination, petitioner admitted that he did not have a license to own or
possess a gun, or previously applied for such.[31]
Meanwhile, the seized drugs from the body search as well as the object of the illegal sale
were marked and inventoried in the police station in the presence of media representative Ed
Mahilum.[32] The object of the illegal sale was marked with JPR/ZY-10-07-15, while the
two sachets from the body search were marked with EF/PC-1-10-07-15 and EF/PC-2-10-07-
15.[33] The two sachets recovered from the vehicle were also marked with JM-1-10-07-15
and JM-2-10-07-15.[34]

Afterwards, the seized drugs were transmitted to the forensic laboratory for examination; the
items tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
[35]

Petitioner was then separately charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165[36]
or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."[37]

Version of the Defense

Petitioner denied the charge. He alleged that on that night, he received a text message from
his friend that her car stalled near "COA" (Commission on Audit Building) because of a flat
tire.[38] When he arrived there, some individuals approached him and asked him to go with
them to the police station.[39] On board a van, petitioner claimed that these persons asked
him who the owner of the gun was; however, they did not show him any gun of sorts nor
recover any from him.[40] When they arrived at the police station, petitioner was arrested.
[41]

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its March 21, 2018 Decision,[42] the RTC convicted petitioner for Illegal Possession of
Firearms. Evidence show that petitioner was found in possession of a firearm with live
ammunition without the requisite license.[43] Petitioner's denial does not deserve credence as
it lacks truth, and it cannot prevail over the positive identification of a credible witness of
the prosecution.[44]

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premised on the attendant facts and evidence and application of

laws and jurisprudence, as the quantum of evidence of proof beyond reasonable
doubt was duly established by the prosecution, judgment is hereby rendered
finding accused PAULO CASTIL y ALVERO GUILTY as charged in the
Information and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty from ranging [sic]
Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor maximum in its minimum
period as minimum to Ten (10) Years Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of
prision mayor maximum in its medium period as maximum.

SO ORDERED.[45]
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a notice of appeal.[46]

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its October 14, 2019 Decision,[47] the CA denied the appeal and affirmed petitioner's
conviction. It ruled that petitioner's warrantless arrest is valid as he was caught in the act of
Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.[48] Thus, the warrantless search that followed is likewise
valid for being pursuant to a valid arrest.[49] Further, the prosecution was able to prove the
elements of Illegal Possession of Firearms. PO1 Rebustes was able to positively identify
petitioner as the person in possession of the subject firearm.[50] The second element is
proved in view of petitioner's admission in court of his lack of license to possess a firearm
and non-application.[51] The CA also brushed aside the inconsistencies in the testimony of
PO1 Rebustes as too minor to affect credibility.[52] Lastly, petitioner's defenses of denial and
frame-up fail in view of the prosecution's positive identification of accused.[53]

The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the APPEAL is DENIED for lack of

merit.

SO ORDERED.[54]

Petitioner moved for reconsideration[55] but it was denied by the CA in its October 9, 2020
Resolution.[56] Hence, this Petition.

Parties' Arguments

Petitioner presents two arguments. First, the search conducted on him is unconstitutional.
The illogical manner by which the alleged illegal sale of dangerous drugs occurred and his
participation therein cast doubt as to the existence of the buy-bust operation.[57] Thus, his
warrantless arrest is invalid, which resultantly makes the subsequent search illegal for not
being conducted after a valid arrest.[58] Second, petitioner argues that his purported
admission of lack of license and non-application is insufficient to produce a conviction.[59]
The prosecution did not submit a negative certification from the PNP to show that petitioner
indeed did not have a license.[60]

In its Comment,[61] the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that there was a
legitimate buy-bust operation where petitioner was validly arrested, resulting to the validity
of the subsequent warrantless search.[62] The OSG also posits that the elements of the crime
charged were present. The second element of lack of authority to possess was sufficiently
established by petitioner's judicial admission.[63]

Petitioner filed a Reply[64] and reiterated that a negative certification from the PNP to prove
petitioner's lack of license is essential for a conviction.[65]

Issue

At the outset, it must be stressed that the subject of the appeal here is petitioner's conviction
for violation of Section 28, paragraphs (a) and (e) of RA 10591, and not his violation of RA
9165.

The issue here is whether petitioner's conviction of the crime of Illegal Possession of
Firearms is proper.

Our Ruling

The Petition has no merit. The Court affirms petitioner's conviction of the crime of Illegal
Possession of Firearms.

Petitioner's warrantless arrest

and subsequent warrantless
search are valid

At the outset, the Court finds that petitioner's arrest and subsequent body search are valid.

Petitioner was arrested pursuant to a buy-bust operation, where he was caught engaged in
Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs punishable under Section 5 of RA 9165, in which he was
separately indicted. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides for the instances of a
valid warrantless arrest:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private

person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to
be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.

xxxx

In order for a warrantless arrest under the first paragraph to be valid, two requisites must
concur: (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and, (b) such overt
act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.[66] The Court held that
in a buy-bust operation, "the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers
conducting the same are not only authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend the violator[,]
and consequently search him [or her] for anything that may have been part of or used in the
commission of the crime."[67]

Here, the Court sees no infirmity in the conduct of the buy-bust against petitioner. There is
no showing that petitioner was instigated to sell dangerous drugs; on the contrary, the order
to commence the transaction in fact came from Young, and PO1 Rebustes and petitioner
merely complied.[68] Further, there is no textbook method of conducting buy-busts.[69] A
prior surveillance is not necessary, especially if the police officers are accompanied by an
informant,[70] such as in the instant case.

Further, it is quite obvious that PO1 Rebustes, being the poseur-buyer, had personal
knowledge of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs between himself and petitioner: PO1
Rebustes gave the marked money to petitioner, who in turn handed him one heat-sealed
plastic sachet of suspected shabu.[71] This is a transgression of Section 5 of RA 9165
committed in the presence of an officer. Thus, petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto.

With petitioner's arrest being within the confines of the law, it follows that the warrantless
search performed on petitioner that yielded the subject firearm is also valid. It is well-settled
that one of the instances of a reasonable warrantless search and seizure is a warrantless
search incidental to a lawful arrest.[72] The subject firearm and ammunition are therefore
admissible in evidence.

Petitioner is guilty of Illegal

Possession of Firearms

Now on the crime committed by petitioner.

Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 28, paragraphs (a) and (e) of RA 10591,
which reads:

ARTICLE V
Penal Provisions

Section 28. Unlawful Acquisition, or Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. —

The unlawful acquisition, possession of firearms and ammunition shall be
penalized as follows:

(a) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm;

xxxx

(e) The penalty of one (1) degree higher than that provided in paragraphs (a) to
(c) in this section shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
possess any firearm under any or combination of the following conditions:

(1) Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine;

 xxxx

Section 28 penalizes unlawful possession of a firearm. The elements of the offense are: (a)
the existence of the subject firearm; and, (b) the fact that the accused who possessed or
owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it.[73] If the firearm is loaded
with ammunition, the penalty is increased one degree higher.

There is no dispute as regards the first element here. The prosecution was able to identify in
court the actual Norinco caliber 9mm firearm with serial number 16047245 and the five live
ammunition seized from petitioner through the markings PO1 Rebustes placed.[74] PO1
Rebustes also positively identified petitioner as the person in possession of the subject
firearm.[75]

Under contention is the second element of lack of license. The CA ruled that petitioner's
judicial admission proves the existence of the second element. Petitioner, however, contends
that his admission is insufficient for a conviction as there is a need for the prosecution to
submit a negative certification from the PNP to prove the second element.

The Court agrees with the CA. Petitioner's own judicial admission of his lack of license to
carry a firearm is sufficient to establish the second element of the crime.

To be clear, there is no exact way of proving the second element of Illegal Possession of
Firearms. What matters is that the courts, including this Court, are convinced that the
element is proven beyond reasonable doubt regardless of the kind of evidence offered to
prove it. Notably, RA 10591 and case law do not provide for specific modes to prove the
element of lack of license to carry a firearm.

Hence, as proof of the second element, the Court usually accepts the presentation of a
certification issued by the Firearms and Explosives Office of the PNP showing that the
accused is not a licensed or registered holder of a firearm, or the testimony to that effect of a
representative therefrom. [76]

As it is not limited to the aforesaid negative certification or testimony, the Court also accepts
the judicial admission of the accused or his counsel that the accused is not a holder of a
license at the time of the commission of the offense. Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence states:

Section 4. Judicial admissions. - An admission, oral or written, made by the party

in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that the imputed admission was not, in fact, made. (4a)

A judicial admission is a verbal declaration or written statement made by a party in the

course of the proceedings in the same case, which does not require proof.[77] It is binding
upon the party making these admissions.[78] A judicial admission is a waiver of proof, and
production of evidence is dispensed with.[79] It removes an admitted fact from the field of
controversy.[80] To contradict one's own admission, the Rules require that the party who
made the admission must show that it was made through palpable mistake, or that the
imputed admission was not, in fact, made.[81]

In a line of cases,[82] the Court considered judicial admissions as proof of the accused's lack
of license to possess a firearm as long as there is no showing that they were made through
palpable mistake, or that they were not, in fact made. In those cases, the Court affirmed the
conviction of the accused even without the negative certification from the PNP or the
testimony from a representative therefrom.[83] The important gauge still is that the judicial
admission must overcome reasonable doubt.

Thus, as it currently stands, the acceptable ways of proving the second element of lack of
license in Illegal Possession of Firearms cases are: (a) the certification issued by the
Firearms and Explosives Office of the PNP; (b) the testimony of a representative from the
Firearms and Explosives Office of the PNP; or, (c) judicial admission of the accused or
counsel. Of course, it is not limited to the foregoing and the element may be proved through
other ways as long as the proof offered overcomes reasonable doubt.

In the instant case, the Court holds that petitioner's judicial admission is sufficient to
establish the second element. Petitioner's statements during the cross-examination show that,
at the time of the commission of the offense, he indeed is not a holder of a license to carry
firearms, thus:

Cross-examination of Accused Paulo Castil by ACP Rafael Jaime A. Mison

ACP MISON:
QMr. Witness you denied being the owner of Norinco 9MM loaded with 5 ammunitions?
ANo, sir.

QOther than this, do you own any other gun?

ANone, sir.

QConsidering that you don't own a gun, you do not have license to own a gun?
ANone, sir.

QEversince [sic] you did not apply for a license to own a gun?
ANo, sir.[84]

Surely, this admission made by petitioner during his cross-examination amounts to a judicial
admission, which no longer requires proof.[85] When asked if he had or had previously
applied for a license, petitioner clearly responded in the negative. There is no room for
interpretation. This response was also not refuted during his re-direct examination.

Further, there is no allegation that the admission was made through palpable mistake or was
not in fact made at all. Petitioner's contentions in the appeal did not include this point and
merely focused on assailing the kind of evidence to prove the element.

In view of this judicial admission, it is no longer necessary to present a negative certification

from the PNP or a testimony of a representative therefrom to prove the second element.

Considering the foregoing, the Court is convinced that the elements of the crime of Illegal
Possession of Firearms were sufficiently established.

Penalty

As to the penalty, Section 28 of RA 10591 imposes the penalty of prision mayor in its
medium period for illegal possession of a small arm. The penalty is increased to a higher
degree—prision mayor in its maximum period in this instance—if the subject firearm is
loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine. As Section 28 adopts the
nomenclature of the penalties under the Revised Penal Code[86] (RPC), "the ascertainment
of the indeterminate sentence will be based on the rules applied for those crimes punishable
under the RPC."[87]

In this case, it is undisputed that the subject firearm is loaded with five ammunition, thereby
necessitating the aggravation of penalty.

The proper penalty therefore is eight (8) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision
mayor in its medium period, as minimum, and ten (10) years, eight (8) months, and one (1)
day of prision mayor in its maximum period, as maximum.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The October 14, 2019 Decision and October 9,
2020 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42335 are AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Petitioner Paulo Castil y Alvero is found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Section 28, paragraphs (a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 1 0591,
otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act." He is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of eight (8) years, eight (8)
months, and one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to and ten (10)
years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor in its maximum period, as
maximum.

SO ORDERED.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concur.

[1] Rollo, pp. 11-34.

[2]Id. at 36-48. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., and concurred in by
Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.

[3] Id. at 50-52. Id.

[4] Id. at 72-81. Penned by Presiding Judge Rafael G. Hipolito.

[5]
Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS
AND AMMUNITION AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF;"
[COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION Act]. Approved:
May 29, 2013.
[6]Records, p. 1. Petitioner was also separately charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (see rollo, p. 41).

[7] Id. Emphasis in the original.

[8] Id. at 36.

[9] Alias "Mommy."

[10] Rollo, p. 37.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id. at 38.

[20] Rollo, p. 38; TSN, October 27, 2015, pp. 13-14.

[21] Rollo, p. 38.

[22] Id.

[23] Id. at 38, 75.

[24] Id. at 38.

[25] Id.
[26] Rollo, p. 38; TSN, April 18, 2016, p. 6.

[27] Records, p. 9.

[28] Id.

[29] Rollo, p. 38; TSN, April 18, 2016. pp. 7 and 9.

[30] Rollo, p. 38.

[31] TSN, January 5, 2018, p. 10.

[32] Records, pp. 7, 9, 18. TSN, May 30, 2016, pp. 13-14.

[33] Id.

[34] Id. at 9.

[35] Id. at 12-13 .

[36]
Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS
ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES;" [COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF 2002]. Approved: June 7, 2002.

[37] Records, p. 2. TSN, April 18, 2016, pp. 15-16.

[38] TSN, January 5, 2018, p. 5.

[39] Id. at 5-7.

[40] Id. at 7-8.

[41] Id. at 8-9.

[42] Rollo, pp. 72-81.

[43] Id. at 79.

[44] Id. at 79-80.

[45] Id. at 80-81. Emphasis in the Original.

[46] CA rollo, pp. 12-13.

[47] Rollo, pp. 36-48.

[48] Id. at 40-42.

[49] Id.

[50] Id. at 42.

[51] Id. at 42-43.

[52] Id. at 45.

[53] Id. at 47.

[54] Id. at 48. Emphasis in the original.

[55] Id. at 50.

[56] Id. at 50-52.

[57] Id. at 18-20.

[58] Id. at 21-23.

[59] Id. at 23-25.

[60] Id. at 26-27.

[61] Id. at 127-141.

[62] Id. at 131-133.

[63] Id. at 135- 136.

[64] Temporary rollo, unpaginated.

[65] Id.

[66] Damayo v. People, G.R. No. 241275, February 15, 2022, citing People v. Cogaed, 740
Phil. 212, 238 (2014).
[67] People v. Cruz, 667 Phil. 420, 435 (2011). Citation omitted.

[68] Rollo, p. 38.

[69]People v. Jimenez, 842 Phil. 87, 98-99 (2018), citing People v. Manlangit, 654 Phil.
427, 437 (2011)

[70] Id.

[71] Rollo, p. 38.

[72] People v. Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020.

[73]Lodovice v. People, G.R. No. 256508, November 23, 2021, citing Jacaban v. People,
756 Phil. 523, 531 (2015).

[74] TSN, April 18, 2016. pp. 6-10; TSN, May 30, 2016, pp. 9-10.

[75] TSN, April 18, 2016, pp. 14-15.

[76] People v. Guinto, G.R. No. 243591, September 16, 2020.

[77] Leynes v. People, 795 Phil. 927, 935 (2016).

[78] Id.

[79] Id.

[80] Id.

[81] Id.

[82] Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 236005, March 21, 2018; Flores v. People, G.R. No.
219154, September 2, 2015; Castro v. People, G.R. No. 157700, June 5, 2013. Unsigned
Resolutions of the Court. In Castro, the judicial admission is in the form of the admission in
court of petitioner's (accused) counsel that "petitioner had not been issued any permit to
carry any firearm." In Flores, the judicial admission was made by petitioner during pre-trial.
In Lopez, the judicial admission was in the form of a stipulation of facts the parties entered
into during the pre-trial conference as contained in the Pre-Trial Order.

[83] Id.

[84] TSN, January 5, 2018, p. 10. Emphases supplied.

[85] People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 243933, June 21, 2021.

[86]
Entitled "AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS."
Approved: December 8, 1930.

[87]
Cahulogan v. People, 828 Phil. 742, 751 (2018). See Act No. 4103, entitled "AN ACT
TO PROVIDE AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS
CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS; TO CREATE A BOARD OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO
PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," sec. 1. Approved:
December 5, 1933.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)