SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 231787, August 19, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RODEL VELASCO Y LUZON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by the accused-appellant Rodel Velasco y Luzon (accused-appellant Velasco) assailing the Decision2 dated October 21, 2016 (assailed Decision) of the Court of Appeals3 (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07365, which affirmed the Decision4 dated October 20, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. Q-12-175282, finding accused-appellant Velasco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866,5 as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9516.6
Accused-appellant was charged by the prosecution with the crime of violation of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 9516, as follows:That on or about the 20th day of March 2012, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in possession and under his custody and control, One (1) MK-2 Fragmentation Hand Grenade, without first having secured the necessary license/permit issued by the proper authorities.x x x x
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The facts as found by the RTC in its Decision dated October 20, 2014 arising from the divergent versions of the prosecution and the defense were summarized as follows by the trial court:The evidence for the prosecution tends to establish that PO3 Jason A. Taguba [(PO3 Taguba)] and PO1 Romualdo C. Bacani [(PO1 Bacani)] are police officers assigned at the La Loma Police Station, Mobile Patrol Unit. On March 20, 2012 at around 1:40 in the morning, they were with their supervisor, P/CINSP Joseph Garcia De Vera [(De Vera)] and other police officers conducting "OPLAN SIT A" along G. Araneta Avenue, corner Maria Clara Street, Brgy. Sto. Domingo, Quezon City. According to PO[1] Bacani and PO[3] Taguba, "OPLAN SITA" is similar to a checkpoint and they just receive a radio message from their director.
In the course of "OPLAN SITA", they noticed a Daewoo Racer car without any plate number attached in front. So what they did was to signal the driver of the Daewoo Racer car to stop. Hence, as signaled by them, the driver of the Daewoo Racer to stopped (sic) the car. It was at this time that [PO1 Bacani] noticed in plain view a gun tucked at the waistline of one of the passengers by the name of Roberto Alegre y Apat [(Alegre)]. This prompted them to order the three passengers to alight therefrom. PO3 Taguba then frisked the accused and found in his possession one (1) MK2 fragmentation grenade. Hence, they arrested the accused and his companions and brought them to the police station where they executed a Joint Affidavit of Arrest8 (Exhibit "B").
PO3 Robert F. Rodillas [(PO3 Rodillas)] of the Explosives Ordinance Disposal Division of the Quezon City Police District [(QCPD)] testified that upon receipt of a request for a Certification9 from Police Station 1, QCPD of one (1) fragmentation hand grenade with markings "RD" and "JT", he immediately conducted an examination and found out that it is a live fragmentation grenade capable of exploding within a ten meter radius and could cause casualties. He also found out that the three (3) main parts of the grenade are present namely, the fuse assembly, the explosive filter which contain TNT flakes and the body. After that examination he made, he issued a Certification dated March 20, 2012 (Exhibit "C").
On the other hand, the evidence of the defense tends to show that on March 20, 2012, at night time, he was just inside his house located in Malabon City when his friends by the name of Jerry Lapena [(Lapena)] and [Alegre] arrived and invited him to attend the birthday party of their friend in Blumentritt. They rode on board a car which he remembers (sic) to have a plate number. They were not able to reach Blumentritt, however, because a mobile car stopped them and were asked to alight therefrom. They were asked to lie face down while they were frisking them and no hand grenade was found in his possession. Thereafter, he and [Lapena] were asked to board the mobile car where the police officers by the names of [PO3] Taguba and [PO1] Bacani asked money from them. When they were not able to give them any amount, they brought them to the La Loma Police Station and it was only during the inquest proceedings when he learned that he was being charged of illegal possession of explosives.10
WHEREFORE, viewed in the light of the foregoing, the Court finds accused RODEL VELASCO y LUZON guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 3, Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act 9516. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.In sum, the RTC held that based on the evidence on record, the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of accused-appellant Velasco beyond reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.11
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated October 20, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 87 of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-12-175282 is AFFIRMED.Hence, the instant appeal.
SO ORDERED.12
SEC. 3. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales, Acquisition, Disposition, Importation or Possession of an Explosive or Incendiary Device. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall willfully and unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose, import or possess any explosive or incendiary device, with knowledge of its existence and its explosive or incendiary character, where the explosive or incendiary device is capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any person, including but not limited to, hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), 'pillbox bomb', 'molotov cocktail bomb', 'fire bomb', and other similar explosive and incendiary devices.To convict an accused for illegal possession of an explosive devise under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, jurisprudence has held that two (2) essential elements must be indubitably established: (a) the existence of the subject firearm or explosive which may be proved by the presentation of the subject firearm or explosive or by the testimony of witnesses who saw accused in possession of the same, and (b) the negative fact that the accused had no license or permit to own or possess the firearm or explosive which fact may be established by the testimony or certification of a representative of the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Unit that the accused has no license or permit to possess the subject firearm or explosive.13
The prosecution then manifested in open court that the custody of the fragmentation hand grenade allegedly retrieved from accused-appellant Velasco found its way to PO3 Rodillas of the Explosives Ordinance Disposal Division of the Quezon City Police District (QCPD).17 According to the prosecution's evidence, the fragmentation hand grenade was turned over by Police Station 1 of the QCPD to PO3 Rodillas for examination.
Q Did you execute a chain of custody form when you turned - over the grenade to the Investigator? A No, sir.16
In connection with the foregoing incontrovertible facts, the Court has previously held that in the criminal prosecution of violation of P.D. No. 1866, "[r]eceipts for seized items are mandatory on the part of apprehending and seizing police officers."20 To reiterate, such mandatory requirement was not met by the authorities in the instant case.
Q Do you have any inventory with regard to this grenade? Do you remember executing an inventory? A No, sir.19
Hence, the RTC and CA committed grievous error when they relied heavily on the Certification of PO3 Rodillas to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
STENOGRAPHER: Meaning to say, you still have no documentary evidence to show that indeed, yourself conducted a test and that the same was reduced into writing? x x x x WITNESS: No, sir. x x x x COURT: Question, this Certification merely states that one live fragmentation hand grenade was turned over by police station 1 on March 20, 201[2] and there is (sic) no findings that you conducted an examination, correct? WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.22
However, according to the testimony of PO3 Rodillas, the grenade which he examined, which is the same specimen presented during the trial and admitted as evidence for the prosecution, had the marking "R.V. - J.D.," which stood for "Rodel Velasco - Jason Dagupan," and not the initials of PO3 Taguba:
Q The markings on the grenade, who did it? A I put my initials, sir.23 (Underscoring supplied)
This seriously puts into doubt, to say the least, that the grenade specimen allegedly retrieved by PO3 Taguba from accused-appellant Velasco, which he supposedly marked with his initials, is the same specimen examined and offered into evidence by PO3 Rodillas.
Q: Could you tell us what the marking is? A: The marking was R.V., Romeo Victor - J.D., Juliet Tango, ma'am. Q: Okay, do you happen to know what it means? A: Actually, I was the one who marked this, ma'am but the officer of police station 1 who is the one who marked it. All I know is R.V. stands for Rodel Velasco - J.D., Jason Dagupan, ma'am.24 (Underscoring supplied)
However, when PO3 Taguba was asked the same question on cross-examination, he offered a completely different answer:
Q But my question is, when you and your companion effected the frisking and the arrest, based on your answer earlier, all of them are still inside the vehicle, is it not? A Yes, sir.26
The CA downplayed this striking inconsistency in the testimonies of PO3 Taguba and PO1 Bacani, treating the same as "trivial matters which do not touch on the essential elements of the crime charged."28
Q I understand when you conducted the search, all of the accused were still inside the vehicle or they were already out the vehicle? A They were already out, sir. Q When they were already out, that was the time you did the frisking? A Yes, sir.27 (Underscoring supplied)
Endnotes:
* Designated as Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2699 dated August 15, 2019.
1 See Notice of Appeal dated November 11, 2016, rollo, pp. 10-12.
2Rollo, pp. 2-9. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court)
with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring.
3 Special Fifth (5th) Division.
4 CA rollo, pp. 51-56. Penned by Presiding Judge Aurora A. Hernandez-Calledo.
5 CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION, OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES.
6 AN ACT FURTHER AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866, As AMENDED, ENTITLED "CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER RELEVANT PURPOSES."
7Rollo, pp. 3-4.
8 Records, p. 6.
9 Id. at 7.
10Rollo, pp. 3-4.
11 CA rollo, p. 56.
12Rollo, p. 9.
13People v. Cortez, 381 Phil. 345, 353 (2000).
14People v. Punzalan, 773 Phil. 72, 90-91 (2015).
15 TSN, May 27, 2013, p. 7.
16 TSN, August 5, 2013, p. 8.
17 TSN, May 27, 2013, p. 8.
18 TSN, September 4, 2012, p. 10.
19 TSN, August 5, 2013, p. 8.
20People v. Bansil, 364 Phil. 22, 32 (1999); emphasis and underscoring supplied.
21 Records, pp. 4-5.
22 TSN, September 4, 2012, pp. 37-38.
23 TSN, August 5, 2013, p. 9.
24 TSN, September 4, 2012, p. 17.
25People v. Bansil, supra note 20, at 33.
26 TSN, May27, 2013, p. 15.
27 TSN, August 5, 2013, pp. 8-9.
28Rollo, p. 8.
29Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 234196, November 21, 2018, accessed at <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64823>.