People v. Sayco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Cedric Sayco y Villanueva was accused of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294. The Information alleged that on January 3, 1999, in Bais City, petitioner unlawfully possessed and carried a caliber 9MM SIGSAUER P229 pistol with fourteen (14) live ammunitions without the proper license or authority. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied petitioner's Petition for Review and subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner assailed his conviction, arguing that he had proof of authority to possess the firearm, specifically a Memorandum Receipt for Equipment and a Mission Order, as he was a confidential agent of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). He contended that these documents, issued by the Philippine Army, were sufficient authority and that he acted in good faith.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in convicting the petitioner for violation of P.D. 1866, as amended by RA 8294, despite the latter's proof of authority to possess the subject firearm. Whether the prosecution's evidence proved the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated May 23, 2003 and August 7, 2003 of the Court of Appeals, together with the Decision dated March 14, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Bais City, are MODIFIED only with respect to the penalty of imprisonment. Petitioner Cedric Sayco y Villanueva is sentenced to serve an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to five (5) years, four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the lower court erred in convicting the petitioner for violation of P.D. 1866, as amended by RA 8294, despite the latter's proof of authority to possess the subject firearm: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order do not constitute sufficient authority to possess and carry the firearm. The Court reiterated settled jurisprudence that such documents cannot take the place of a duly issued firearms license. Petitioner, being a confidential civilian agent not included in the regular plantilla and not receiving regular compensation, was not qualified to receive government-owned firearms. The issuance of the Memorandum Receipt did not legitimize his possession, and the Mission Order was illegally issued as he was not a regular civilian agent. Furthermore, at the time of apprehension, he was not acting on an official mission but attending to a family emergency. On the issue of whether the prosecution's evidence proved the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the prosecution successfully established the corpus delicti, which is the accused's lack of license or permit to possess or carry the firearm. The existence of the firearm and ammunitions, the petitioner's possession thereof, his status as a confidential agent, his lack of a license from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit, and his possession of the Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order were undisputed. The core issue was the validity of these documents as authority, which the Court found to be insufficient. The crime of illegal possession of firearms is a malum prohibitum, meaning that good faith is not a valid defense.
Main Doctrine
A Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order issued to a confidential civilian agent, who is not part of the regular plantilla and not receiving regular compensation, do not constitute sufficient authority to possess or carry a firearm, and do not exempt the holder from the requirements of a license and permit under P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294. Good faith is not a defense in the crime of illegal possession of firearms, which is a malum prohibitum.