People v. Asuncion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rolando Abadilla, a former colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, was charged with Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition) in an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 104, NCJR, Quezon City. The Information alleged that on July 27, 1987, Abadilla unlawfully possessed various firearms and ammunition without authority of law and without the necessary license or permit. Procedural History: Upon motion of the accused, the respondent Judge, Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, dismissed the Information via a Resolution dated September 1, 1987. The dismissal was based on the ground that the Information did not allege sufficient facts to constitute an offense, citing Executive Order No. 107, as extended by Executive Order No. 222, which provided a period for surrendering unlicensed firearms without criminal liability, except when carried outside the residence or used in another offense. The respondent Judge cited the case of People vs. Lopez. The prosecution's motion for reconsideration was denied by an Order dated September 25, 1987. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Resolution and Order of the respondent Judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge erred in holding that the possession of loose firearms and explosives is not illegal per se during the period covered by Executive Orders Nos. 107 and 222. Whether it was necessary for the prosecution to allege in the information that the firearms and ammunition were brought out of the accused's residence or used in the commission of another offense. Whether the allegation in the information that the accused unlawfully and feloniously had in his possession the firearms and ammunition could be used to prove that the accused carried them outside his residence.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Resolution and Order of the respondent Judge are affirmed. The Information filed against Rolando Abadilla is fatally defective and does not charge any offense.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether possession of loose firearms is illegal per se during the period of Executive Orders Nos. 107 and 222: The Court held that while Executive Orders Nos. 107 and 222 did not expressly legalize unlicensed possession, they were similar in nature to Republic Acts Nos. 4 and 482. These prior laws, as interpreted by the Court in People vs. Lopez, People vs. Feliciano, and People vs. Tabunares, temporarily lifted criminal liability for mere possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition during the specified surrender period. However, this exemption did not extend to cases where the unlicensed firearm or ammunition was carried outside one's residence (unless for the purpose of surrender) or used in the commission of another offense. Therefore, the possession was not per se illegal during the period, but the act of carrying or using it outside the surrender purpose remained punishable. On the necessity of alleging the use or carrying of firearms outside the residence: The Court affirmed that it was necessary to allege these circumstances in the information. Citing People vs. Lopez and People vs. Austria, the Court reiterated that under laws similar to the Executive Orders in question, the use or carrying of firearms and/or ammunition was an essential ingredient, if not the sole ingredient, of the offense. These were the very acts punished, subject to certain conditions. Therefore, an information that fails to allege these specific acts, which are crucial for establishing criminal liability beyond mere possession, is insufficient to constitute an offense. On whether the general allegation of unlawful possession could prove carrying outside the residence: The Court found this contention without merit. As stated in People vs. Austria, the presentation of evidence cannot validate a void information. If the information is fatally defective and does not charge any offense at all, it is considered as not existing in contemplation of law. The general allegation of unlawful possession, without specifying the acts of carrying or use outside the residence, does not cure the defect in the information. The information must contain allegations that satisfy the elements of the offense as defined by the relevant laws and executive orders.
Main Doctrine
An information for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition) is fatally defective if it does not allege facts constituting the offense, particularly the use or carrying of the firearms and ammunition outside the residence or their use in the commission of another offense, as required by Executive Orders Nos. 107 and 222 which temporarily lifted criminal liability for mere possession during a specified period.