People v. Damaso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 18, 1988, law enforcement officers apprehended several individuals suspected of being CPP/NPA members. These individuals revealed the existence of an underground safehouse. A subsequent raid on a house in Gracia Village yielded subversive documents and a firearm. Following this, surveillance was placed on an apartment in Bonuan, Dagupan City. A visitor, Luzviminda Morados, identified the appellant, Basilio Damaso, as the lessee of a house and the owner of confiscated items. Upon visiting the vacated house, and later another rented house pointed out by the Barangay Captain with the assistance of Morados and Luz Tanciangco, law enforcement officers found subversive materials, including an M-14 rifle with ammunition, radio sets, a copier, and a computer. The persons found in the house, including Teresita Calosa, Ricardo Calosa, Marites Calosa, Eric Tanciangco, and Luzviminda Morados, identified the appellant as the lessee and owner of the confiscated items. Procedural History: An amended information charged Basilio Damaso with Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, specifically the third paragraph of Section 1, in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court admitted the prosecution's exhibits despite objections regarding hearsay, irrelevance, and lack of a search warrant. The defense presented no evidence. The Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City rendered a decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with confiscation of the seized items. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the decision, assigning several errors, including the trial court's finding of guilt based on inadequate evidence, failure to prove the qualifying circumstance of subversion, admission of inadmissible evidence obtained from an illegal search, and the denial of motions to quash based on the absorption of the illegal possession charge by the subversion charge.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion, due to allegedly inadequate evidence. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused when the qualifying circumstance of subversion was not proven. Whether the trial court erred in considering as evidence the firearms, documents, and items declared inadmissible by another branch of the same court and obtained from an illegal search. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motions to quash filed by the accused-appellant because the separate charge for subversion absorbed the charge for illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and acquitted the accused-appellant. The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish the appellant's connection to the house and the seized items, the search to be illegal, and the identification of the firearm to be flawed. The Court also clarified that the crime of subversion does not absorb the crime of illegal possession of firearms.
Ratio Decidendi
On the inadequacy of evidence: The Court held that the testimonies of Lt. Candido Quijardo and M/Sgt. Artemio Gomez regarding the appellant being the lessee of the house and owner of the seized items were hearsay. These witnesses testified on matters not of their personal knowledge, relying on statements made by Luz Tanciangco and Luzviminda Morados. The Court reiterated the principle that hearsay evidence, even if not objected to, has no probative value. The failure to present witnesses with personal knowledge and to allow the appellant to confront and cross-examine them rendered the prosecution's case weak. Given the cumulative effect of the hearsay testimonies, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellant was acquitted. On the illegality of the search and seizure and discrepancy in firearm's serial number: The Court found that the search of the appellant's dwelling was illegal as it was conducted without a valid search warrant and did not fall under any of the exceptions to the rule. The consent to enter and search was deemed invalid. The Court emphasized that the constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures is personal and can only be waived by the person whose rights are invaded. The Court also noted a significant discrepancy between the serial number of the M-14 rifle stated in the amended information and the serial number of the rifle presented in court. This error was deemed to go into the substance of the charge, affecting the establishment of the corpus delicti. On the inadmissibility of evidence: The Court considered the firearms, documents, and items declared inadmissible due to the illegal search and seizure, further weakening the prosecution's case. On the absorption of illegal possession by subversion: The Court clarified that subversion (under R.A. 1700) and rebellion are distinct crimes. The Court cited previous rulings distinguishing these offenses and emphasized that R.A. 1700 was enacted to outlaw organizations that pose a danger to national security. The Court also distinguished the present case from others where the charge was a complex crime or separate charges were filed, noting that P.D. 1866 created a qualified offense of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of subversion.
Main Doctrine
Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value. Furthermore, evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible. A discrepancy in the serial number of a firearm described in the information and the one presented in court can create reasonable doubt as to the corpus delicti.