without first having secured the necessary license/permit issued by the proper authorities.

THIRD DIVISION CONTRARY TO LAW.

[G.R. No. 164815. February 22, 2008.] Quezon City, Philippines, July 15, 1996.

(Sgd.)
SR. INSP. JERRY C. VALEROSO, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
GLORIA VICTORIA C. YAP
Assistant City Prosecutor [18]
DECISION
With the assistance of his counsel de parte, Atty. Oscar Pagulayan, petitioner pleaded not guilty when
arraigned on October 9, 1996. [19] Trial on the merits ensued.

REYES, R.T., J : p SPO2 Disuanco and Deriquito testified for the prosecution in the manner stated above.

THE law looks forward, never backward. Lex prospicit, non respicit. A new law has a prospective, not Upon the other hand, the defense version was supplied by the combined testimonies of petitioner Sr. Insp.
[1] Jerry C. Valeroso, SPO3 Agustin R. Timbol, Jr. and Adrian Yuson.
retroactive, effect. However, penal laws that favor a guilty person, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be given
retroactive effect. 1-a These are the rule, the exception and exception to the exception on effectivity of laws. Petitioner recounted that on July 10, 1996, he was fast asleep in the boarding house of his children located
at Sagana Homes, Barangay New Era, Quezon City. [20] He was roused from his slumber when four (4) heavily
Ang batas ay tumitingin sa hinaharap, hindi sa nakaraan. Gayunpaman, ang parusa ng bagong batas
ay iiral kung ito ay pabor sa taong nagkasala na hindi pusakal na kriminal. armed men in civilian clothes bolted the room. [21] They trained their guns at him [22] and pulled him out of the
room. They then tied his hands and placed him near the faucet. [23] The raiding team went back inside and
We apply the exception rather than the rule in this petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the
Court of Appeals (CA), affirming with modification that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Quezon City, finding searched and ransacked the room. [24] SPO2 Disuanco stood guard outside with him. [25] Moments later, an
petitioner liable for illegal possession of a firearm. Cdpr
operative came out of the room and exclaimed, "Hoy, may nakuha akong baril sa loob!" [26]

The Facts Petitioner was told by SPO2 Disuanco that "we are authorized to shoot you because there's a shoot to kill
order against you, so if you are planning do so something, do it right now." [27] He was also told that there was a
On July 10, 1996, at around 9:30 a.m., SPO2 Antonio M. Disuanco of the Criminal Investigation Division,
standing warrant for his arrest. [28] However, he was not shown any proof when he asked for it. [29] Neither was the
Central Police District Command, received a dispatch order [2] from the desk officer. [3] The order directed him and
raiding group armed with a valid search warrant. [30]
three (3) other policemen to serve a warrant of arrest [4] issued by Judge Ignacio Salvador against petitioner Sr.
Insp. Jerry C. Valeroso in a case for kidnapping with ransom. [5] According to petitioner, the search done in the boarding house was illegal. The gun seized from him was
duly licensed and covered by necessary permits. He was, however, unable to present the documentation relative to
After a briefing, the team conducted the necessary surveillance on petitioner, checking his hideouts in
the firearm because it was confiscated by the police. Petitioner further lamented that when he was incarcerated, he
Cavite, Caloocan, and Bulacan. [6] Eventually, the team proceeded to the Integrated National Police (INP) Central
was not allowed to engage the services of a counsel. Neither was he allowed to see or talk to his family. [31] AEITDH

Station at Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw petitioner as he was about to board a tricycle. [7] SPO2 Disuanco
Petitioner contended that the police had an axe to grind against him. While still with the Narcotics
and his team approached petitioner. [8] They put him under arrest, informed him of his constitutional rights, and
Command, he turned down a request of Col. Romulo Sales to white-wash a drug-related investigation involving
bodily searched him. [9] Found tucked in his waist [10] was a Charter Arms, bearing Serial Number 52315 [11] with
friends of the said police officer. Col. Sales was likewise subject of a complaint filed with the Ombudsman by his
five (5) live ammunition. [12]
wife. Col. Sales was later on appointed as the head of the unit that conducted the search in his boarding house. [32]
[13]
Petitioner was then brought to the police station for questioning. SPO3 Timbol, Jr. of the Narcotics Command testified that he issued to petitioner a Memorandum Receipt
A verification of the subject firearm at the Firearms and Explosives Division at Camp Crame revealed that it dated July 1, 1993 [33] covering the subject firearm and its ammunition. This was upon the verbal instruction of Col.
was not issued to petitioner but to a certain Raul Palencia Salvatierra of Sampaloc, Manila. [14] Epifanio Deriquito, Angelito Moreno. SPO3 Timbol identified his signature [34] on the said receipt. [35]
the records verifier, presented a certification [15] to that effect signed by Edwin C. Roque, chief records officer of the Adrian Yuson, an occupant of the room adjacent to where petitioner was arrested, testified that on July 10,
Firearms and Explosive Division. [16] 1996, two (2) policemen suddenly entered his room as he was preparing for school. [36] They grabbed his shoulder
Petitioner was then charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under Presidential Decree and led him out. [37] During all those times, a gun was poked at him. [38] He was asked where petitioner was
(P.D.) No. 1866, [17] as amended. The Information read: staying. Fearing for his life, he pointed to petitioner's room. [39]

That on or about the 10th day of July, 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused Four (4) policemen then entered the room. [40] He witnessed how they pointed a gun at petitioner, who was
without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her clad only in his underwear. [41] He also witnessed how they forcibly brought petitioner out of his room. [42] While a
possession and under his/her custody and control CaSAcH
policeman remained near the faucet to guard petitioner, three (3) others went back inside the room. [43] They began
searching the whole place. They forcibly opened his locker, [44] which yielded the subject firearm. [45]
One (1) cal. 38 "Charter Arms" revolver bearing Serial No. 52315 with five (5) live
ammo. RTC and CA Dispositions
 On May 6, 1998, the trial court found petitioner guilty as charged, disposing as follows: than petitioner himself. [56]

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation As for petitioner's lack of authority to possess the firearm, Deriquito testified that a verification of the Charter
of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act No. 8294 and hereby Arms Caliber .38 bearing Serial No. 52315 with the Firearms and Explosives Division at Camp Crame revealed that
sentences him to suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or from 4 years, 2 the seized pistol was not issued to petitioner. It was registered in the name of a certain Raul Palencia Salvatierra of
months and 1 day as minimum to 6 years as maximum and to pay the fine in the amount of Fifteen Sampaloc, Manila. [57] As proof, Deriquito presented a certification signed by Roque, the chief records officer of the
Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00). ICAcTa same office. [58]

The gun subject of this case is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government. Let the The Court on several occasions ruled that either the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from,
same be put in trust in the hands of the Chief of the PNP. the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that a person is not a licensee of any
firearm would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of possession of illegal firearms. [59]
SO ORDERED. [46] The prosecution more than complied when it presented both. DTEAHI

The certification is outside the scope

Petitioner moved to reconsider [47] but his motion was denied on August 27, 1998. [48] He appealed to the
CA. of the hearsay rule.
The general rule is that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge;
On May 4, 2004, the appellate court affirmed with modification the RTC disposition. The fallo of the CA
decision reads: that is, which are derived from his own perception. [60] Otherwise, the testimony is objectionable for being hearsay.
[61]
Verily, the penalty imposed by the trial court upon the accused-appellant is modified to 4 years
On this score, the certification from the Firearms and Explosives Division is an exception to the hearsay rule
and 2 months as minimum up to 6 years as maximum.
by virtue of Rule 130, Section 44 of the Rules of Court which provides:
WHEREFORE, with the foregoing MODIFICATION as to the penalty, the decision appealed
Sec. 44. Entries in official records. — Entries in official records made in the performance of
from is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects.
his official duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty
SO ORDERED. [49] specifically enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

His motion for reconsideration [50] having been denied through a Resolution dated August 3, 2004, [51] It may be true that the contents of said certification are only prima facie evidence of the facts stated there.

petitioner resorted to the present petition under Rule 45. However, the failure of petitioner to present controverting evidence makes the presumption unrebutted. Thus, the
presumption stands.
Issues
Petitioner, however, raises several points which he says entitles him to no less than an acquittal.
Petitioner raises the following issues for Our consideration:
The assessment of credibility of
I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW IN witnesses lies with the trial court.
AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF PROOF
First, petitioner says that the seizure of the subject firearm was invalid. The search was conducted after his
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
arrest and after he was taken out of the room he was occupying. [62]
II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF FACT AND This contention deserves scant consideration.
LAW IN SUSTAINING THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH AND THE VALIDITY AND
Petitioner's version of the manner and place of his arrest goes into the factual findings made by the trial
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED THEREFROM DESPITE THE
court and its calibration of the credibility of witnesses. However, as aptly put by Justice Ynares-Santiago in People
OVERWHELMING PROOF THAT THE SAME IS THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE. cCAIaD

v. Rivera: [63]
III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW IN
NOT UPHOLDING THE REGULARITY AND VALIDITY SURROUNDING THE ISSUANCE OF . . . the manner of assigning values to declarations of witnesses on the witness stand is best

THE MEMORANDUM RECEIPTS (SIC) IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER WHICH PROVES HIS and most competently performed by the trial judge who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the
witnesses and assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected on record. The
INNOCENCE OF THE CRIME CHARGE (SIC). [52] (Underscoring supplied)
demeanor of the person on the stand can draw the line between fact and fancy or evince if the witness
Our Ruling is telling the truth or lying through his teeth. We have consistently ruled that when the question arises
as to which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the
In illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, the prosecution has the burden of proving the twin
assessment of the trial courts are generally viewed as correct and entitled to great weight.
elements of (1) the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition, and (2) the fact that the accused who
Furthermore, in an appeal, where the culpability or innocence of the accused depends on the issue of
possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it. [53]
credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the
The prosecution was able to discharge its burden. highest degree of respect if not finality. [64] (Underscoring supplied) caIACE

The existence of the subject firearm and its ammunition was established through the testimony of SPO2
Disuanco. [54] Defense witness Yuson also identified the firearm. [55] Its existence was likewise admitted by no less
 The trial court found the prosecution version worthy of credence and belief. We find no compelling reason We hasten to add that there may also be conviction where an unlicensed firearm is presented during trial
not to accept its observation on this score. but through inadvertence, negligence, or fortuitous event (for example, if it is lost), it is not offered in evidence, as
long as there is competent testimony as to its existence.
Worth noting is the fact that petitioner is a ranking police officer who not only claims to be highly decorated,
[65]
but have effected a number of successful arrests [66] as well. Common sense would dictate that he must Penal and civil liabilities
necessarily be authorized to carry a gun. We thus agree with the Office of the Solicitor General that framing up Petitioner was charged with the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under the first
petitioner would have been a very risky proposition. Had the arresting officers really intended to cause the paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended. It provides that "[t]he penalty of reclusion temporal in its
damnation of petitioner by framing him up, they could have easily "planted" a more incriminating evidence rather maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal
than a gun. That would have made their nefarious scheme easier, assuming that there indeed was one. in, acquire, dispose, or possess any firearm, part of firearm, ammunition or machinery, tool or instrument used or
The pieces of evidence show that intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition." CSTEHI

petitioner is not legally authorized to P.D. No. 1866, as amended, was the governing law at the time petitioner committed the offense on July 10,
possess the subject firearm and its
1996. However, R.A. No. 8294 amended P.D. No. 1866 on July 6, 1997, [81] during the pendency of the case with
five (5) ammunition.
the trial court. The present law now states:
Second, petitioner insists that he is legally authorized to possess the subject firearm and its ammunition on
SECTION 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of
the basis of the Memorandum Receipt issued to him by the PNP Narcotics Command. [67]
Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or
Although petitioner is correct in his submission that public officers like policemen are accorded presumption Ammunition. — The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than
of regularity in the performance of their official duties, [68] it is only a presumption; it may be overthrown by Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
evidence to the contrary. The prosecution was able to rebut the presumption when it proved that the issuance to manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any low-powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun,
petitioner of the Memorandum Receipt was anything but regular. IDSETA .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or
SPO3 Timbol, Jr. testified that he issued the Memorandum Receipt to petitioner based on the verbal instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition: Provided,
That no other crime was committed. (Underscoring supplied)
instruction of his immediate superior, Col. Moreno. [69] However, a reading of Timbol's testimony on cross-
examination [70] would reveal that there was an unusual facility by which said receipt was issued to petitioner. Its As a general rule, penal laws should not have retroactive application, lest they acquire the character of an
issuance utterly lacked the usual necessary bureaucratic constraints. Clearly, it was issued to petitioner under ex post facto law. [82] An exception to this rule, however, is when the law is advantageous to the accused.
questionable circumstances. According to Mr. Chief Justice Araullo, this is "not as a right" of the offender, "but founded on the very principles on
Failure to offer an unlicensed which the right of the State to punish and the commination [*] of the penalty are based, and regards it not as an
firearm as evidence is not fatal exception based on political considerations, but as a rule founded on principles of strict justice." [83]
provided there is competent
Although an additional fine of P15,000.00 is imposed by R.A. No. 8294, the same is still advantageous to
testimony as to its existence.
the accused, considering that the imprisonment is lowered to prision correccional in its maximum period [84] from
Third, petitioner claims that the subject firearm and ammunition should have been excluded as evidence
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua [85] under P.D. No. 1866. EcDATH

because they were not formally offered by the prosecution [71] in violation of Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, prision correccional maximum which ranges from four (4) years,
Court. [72]
two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, is the prescribed penalty and will form the maximum term of the
We note that petitioner contradicted himself when he argued for the validity of the Memorandum Receipt indeterminate sentence. The minimum term shall be one degree lower, which is prision correccional in its medium
and, at the same time, for the exclusion in evidence of the subject firearm and its ammunition. Petitioner's act may period (two [2] years, four [4] months and one [1] day to four [4] years and two [2] months). [86] Hence, the penalty
result to an absurd situation where the Memorandum Receipt is declared valid, while the subject firearm and its imposed by the CA is correct. The penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as
ammunition which are supposedly covered by the Memorandum Receipt are excluded as evidence. That would minimum term, to six (6) years of prision correccional maximum, as maximum term, is in consonance with the
have made the Memorandum Receipt useless.
Court's ruling in Gonzales v. Court of Appeals [87] and Barredo v. Vinarao. [88]
In any case, petitioner's contention has no leg to stand on.
As to the subject firearm and its five (5) live ammunition, their proper disposition should be made under
Contrary to petitioner's claim, the subject firearm [73] and its five (5) live ammunition [74] were offered in Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code [89] which provides, among others, that the proceeds and instruments or tools
evidence by the prosecution. [75] Even assuming arguendo that they were not offered, petitioner's stance must still of the crime shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government.
fail. The existence of an unlicensed firearm may be established by testimony, even without its presentation at trial. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 4, 2004 is AFFIRMED in full. CDTSEI

In People v. Orehuela, [76] the non-presentation of the pistol did not prevent the conviction of the accused. DHcEAa

SO ORDERED.
The doctrine was affirmed in the recent case of People v. Malinao. [77]
Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario and Nachura, JJ., concur.
As previously stated, the existence of the subject firearm and its five (5) live ammunition were established
through the testimony of SPO2 Disuanco. [78] Yuson also identified said firearm. [79] Petitioner even admitted its
Footnotes
existence. [80]