People v. Neri
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eduardo B. Neri was charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm. The firearm in question was a Colt .38 caliber revolver, Serial No. 898685, with four live ammunitions. The accused claimed he was issued the firearm by the Provincial Governor of Lanao del Norte to be used in the performance of his duties as Deputy Governor and that he had a Special Permit issued by the Acting PC Provincial Commander to carry the said firearm outside his residence. Procedural History: The City Court of Cagayan de Oro found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Firearm as defined and penalized under Sec. 878 in relation to Sec. 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4. The court sentenced him to 1 year and 1 day of imprisonment, a fine of P1,000.00, and ordered the confiscation of the firearm and ammunitions. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, raising the issue of whether he could carry the described firearm without a license, except for the one issued by the Provincial Governor and the Special Permit from the Provincial Commander, without violating the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused, Eduardo B. Neri, can carry the described firearm without license except the one issued to him by the Provincial Governor and a Special Permit issued by the Provincial Commander without violating the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code. Whether the firearm in question was issued to the accused by the Provincial Governor of Lanao del Norte to be used in the performance of his duties as Deputy Governor and whether the accused had been issued a permit by the Acting PC Provincial Commander to carry said firearm outside his residence constitutes a valid defense. Whether the permit granted to the accused by the Acting Provincial Commander of Lanao del Norte to carry a firearm outside residence is the permit contemplated under Sec. 881 of Article IV of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, which exempts the possessor thereof from criminal responsibility. Whether a 'paltik' firearm can be the object of a proper license or special permit. Whether good faith and absence of criminal intent are valid defenses for the offense of illegal possession of firearm.
Ruling
The judgment of the City Court of Cagayan de Oro finding Eduardo B. Neri guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Firearm is AFFIRMED. The accused is sentenced to 1 year and 1 day of imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The firearm and ammunitions are ordered confiscated in favor of the government.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the accused can carry the firearm without a valid license or permit: The Court held that the firearm in question was issued to the accused by the Provincial Governor of Lanao del Norte to be used in the performance of his duties as Deputy Governor, and that the accused had been issued a permit by the Acting PC Provincial Commander to carry said firearm outside his residence. However, these facts do not constitute a valid defense. Section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code enumerates exceptions for officials and employees allowed to possess firearms for official duties, but a Deputy Governor is not among those listed. Therefore, the accused does not fall within the exception. On the validity of the permit issued by the Acting Provincial Commander: The Court clarified that the permit granted to the accused by the Acting Provincial Commander of Lanao del Norte to carry a firearm outside his residence (Exh. '4') is not the special permit contemplated under Section 881 of the Revised Administrative Code. Section 881 refers to a special permit that the President of the Philippines may issue or cause to be issued to any subordinate official or employee of any Bureau of the National Government upon application of the Chief of the Bureau, under such terms and conditions as the President may deem proper. The permit issued by the Provincial Commander does not meet these requirements. On the legality of licensing a 'paltik' firearm: The Court emphasized that the revolver in question is a homemade firearm commonly known as 'paltik,' the manufacture and/or possession of which is explicitly prohibited by law (Sec. 878, supra). Consequently, it cannot be the object of a proper license or special permit, as doing so would defeat the purpose of the law. Neither the provincial governor nor the provincial commander could legalize an act which is per se illegal. On the defense of good faith and absence of criminal intent: The Court reiterated that good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses for the offense of illegal possession of firearm because the offense is malum prohibitum, punished by a special law. The fact that the accused has a permit to carry a firearm outside his residence is immaterial since the essence of the crime is the lack of the proper license or special permit issued in accordance with law. The accused cannot seek protection under a permit issued beyond the pale of law. At most, such permit may be considered a mitigating circumstance. On the revocation of prior doctrines: The Court noted that the doctrine enunciated in People vs. Macarandang, which held that the appointment of a civilian as a secret agent to assist in maintaining peace and order and detecting crimes sufficiently placed him in the category of a "peace officer" equivalent to a member of the municipal police, has been revoked in the case of People vs. Mapa. This implies that prior rulings that might have allowed broader interpretations of permits or appointments for firearm possession have been superseded.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a permit by a Provincial Governor or Provincial Commander to carry a firearm does not legalize the possession of a 'paltik' firearm, which is explicitly prohibited by law. Such a permit, if issued beyond the pale of law, cannot serve as a valid defense against illegal possession charges, as the offense is malum prohibitum and good faith or absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses.