People v. Lubo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the night of September 29, 1952, Salvador Lubo shot Filomeno Divinagracia with a carbine in the fishpond of Ramon Doromal, where Divinagracia was the caretaker. The following day, Lubo surrendered the carbine and thirteen bullets to the local authorities. An investigation revealed that Lubo had been in possession of the carbine and 15 bullets from January 15, 1948, until September 30, 1952. Lubo claimed he found the firearm in a landing barge in January 1948 and, upon instruction from Doromal, presented it to the municipal mayor, who issued a provisional permit to Doromal, and later to Lubo, to possess the firearm. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Iloilo found Salvador Lubo guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of not less than five years, with accessories of the law, and forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition. Ramon Doromal was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Lubo appealed. The Petition: Salvador Lubo appealed the decision, raising questions of law regarding the validity of the provisional permit, the absence of animus possidendi, and the proportionality of the penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in not giving due weight to the provisional permit issued by the mayor. Whether the trial court erred in not finding that the element of animus possidendi was absent. Whether the trial court erred in imposing a penalty out of proportion to the offense, without recommending executive clemency.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo finding Salvador Lubo guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition is affirmed. However, the case is to be forwarded to the Secretary of Justice with a recommendation to reduce the penalty to one year, considering the circumstances presented.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the provisional permit: The Court held that a municipal mayor is not authorized by law to issue licenses to possess firearms or temporary licenses to persons surrendering them. Such authority rests with the President of the Philippines for regular licenses and the Provost Marshal General or provincial provost marshal for temporary licenses. Furthermore, Republic Act No. 4, which provided for such permits, was repealed by Republic Act No. 486, and all temporary licenses issued thereunder were cancelled. The appellant failed to show he possessed a regular license or a provisional permit pending the issuance of a regular license from competent authorities. The permit issued on January 15, 1948, was also invalid as temporary licenses are effective only for periods not exceeding three months and had not been renewed. On the absence of animus possidendi: The Court ruled that the plea of lack of animus possidendi is untenable. The crime charged is punished by a special law, considered a malum prohibitum, meaning no malice or intent to commit a crime need be proven. While possession coupled with intent to possess is required, the appellant's conduct, including the possession and use of the firearm and his attempt to secure a "temporary license," demonstrated the existence of animus possidendi. The very act of possessing the firearm, regardless of the intent to use it for an unlawful purpose, constitutes the offense. On the proportionality of the penalty and clemency: The Court reiterated its ruling in People vs. Estoista that confinement from five to ten years for possessing or carrying firearms is not cruel or unusual, given the prevalent conditions of lawlessness the law aims to suppress. The constitutionality of the law is not to be judged by exceptional cases. However, the Court acknowledged that if the imprisonment appears out of proportion in a specific case, courts are advised to recommend clemency or reduction of the penalty to the Chief Executive, as provided by Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code. The failure of the trial court to make such a recommendation does not warrant acquittal. In this specific case, considering the appellant's reporting of the discovery, surrender of the firearm, the issuance of a permit (albeit invalid), the presumed act of defending his employer's property, and his voluntary surrender of the firearm, the Court recommended a reduction of the penalty to one year.
Main Doctrine
A municipal mayor is not authorized by law to issue licenses to possess firearms. Possession of firearms without a valid license from competent authorities constitutes illegal possession, as it is a malum prohibitum offense where intent to commit a crime need not be proven.