Case Digest: Castil v. People, G.R. No. 253930, July 03, 2022

 

CASE TITLE: Castil v. People
GR No/ Date: G.R. No. 253930, July 03, 2022
PETITIONER: Paulo Castil y Alvero Represented by: -	RESPONDENT: People of the Philippines Represented by: -
ACTION WITH THE SUPREME COURT: Petition for Review on Certiorari
PONENTE: Hernando, J.
FACTS: Petitioner, Paulo Castil y Alvero, was found guilty of Illegal Possession of Firearms under RA 10591 for possessing a Norinco cal. 9mm firearm and ammunition without a license. Prosecution’s Version: On July 10, 2015,  around 10:00 p.m, a confidential informant tipped off the police that a certain Sandra Young was selling illegal drugs. Police formed a buy-bust team with PO1 John Paul Rebustes as poseur-buyer, and others as backup. PO1 Rebustes received a marked P500 bill for the operation. Around 12:00 a.m., a black Honda CRY driven by Young with petitioner arrived. Young instructed PO1 Rebustes to pay petitioner, who handed over a sachet of suspected shabu. PO1 Rebustes attempted to arrest Young and petitioner, who fled. The vehicle crashed into a gutter. Petitioner and PO1 Rebustes struggled; backup officers arrived and assisted in the arrest. A body search of petitioner revealed a Norinco caliber 9mm gun with ammunition and two sachets of suspected shabu. Additional drugs were found in the vehicle. Items were marked and inventoried at the police station, tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.  Petitioner was also charged with violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Defense’s Version: Petitioner claimed he was at a different location, assisting a friend with a flat tire,  when he was approached by individuals who took him to the police station.  He denied having a gun and alleged no gun was shown or recovered from him RTC: Convicted petitioner Paulo Castil y Alvero of Illegal Possession of Firearms. Evidence showed possession of a firearm with live ammunition without a license.  Petitioner’s denial was not credible compared to the positive identification by a reliable witness. CA: Affirmed RTC conviction. Validity of the warrantless arrest as petitioner was caught in the act of illegal drug sale. Validity of the subsequent warrantless search. Prosecution proved the elements of Illegal Possession of Firearms. Minor inconsistencies in PO1 Rebustes' testimony did not affect credibility. Petitioner’s defenses of denial and frame-up were rejected
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner's conviction of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms is proper. YES
PETITIONER ARGUMENTS:	OSG:
Petitioner claims the search was unconstitutional and that the buy-bust operation lacked credibility, making the arrest and subsequent search invalid. Petitioner argues that a negative certification from the PNP was needed to prove lack of a firearm license.	Valid buy-bust operation and valid arrest. Validity of the subsequent warrantless search. Elements of the crime, including lack of license, were established by petitioner’s admission.
DECISION/DOCTRINE:   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; (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. x x x x In order for a warrantless arrest under the first paragraph to be valid, two requisites must concur:  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, such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. 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." 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. Further, there is no textbook method of conducting buy-busts. A prior surveillance is not necessary, especially if the police officers are accompanied by an informant, 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 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. 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; x x x x (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; x x x x Section 28 penalizes unlawful possession of a firearm. The elements of the offense are:  the existence of the subject firearm; and, the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it. 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. PO1 Rebustes also positively identified petitioner as the person in possession of the subject firearm.  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.  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.   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. It is binding upon the party making these admissions.  A judicial admission is a waiver of proof, and production of evidence is dispensed with.  It removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy. 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.  In a line of cases, 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. 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:  the certification issued by the Firearms and Explosives Office of the PNP;  the testimony of a representative from the Firearms and Explosives Office of the PNP; or,  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: Q Mr. Witness you denied being the owner of Norinco 9MM loaded with 5 ammunitions? A No, sir. Q Other than this, do you own any other gun? A None, sir. Q Considering that you don't own a gun, you do not have license to own a gun? A None, sir. Q Eversince [sic] you did not apply for a license to own a gun? A No, sir.  Surely, this admission made by petitioner during his cross-examination amounts to a judicial admission, which no longer requires proof. When asked if he had or had previously applied for a license, petitioner clearly responded in ihe 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 (RPC), "the ascertainment of the indeterminate sentence will be based on the rules applied for those crimes punishable under the RPC." 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.