SECOND DIVISION and there shooting with the said gun the said Jaime Verde, and if the
he said gun the said Jaime Verde, and if the said accused
[G.R. No. 95523. August 18, 1997]
REYNALDO GONZALES y RIVERA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
DECISION
ROMERO, J.:
The new law, Republic Act No. 8294,[1] approved barely two months ago (June
6, 1997) which has lowered the penalty for illegal possession of firearms finds
application in instant case to favor the accused so as to immediately release him
from jail where he has already served nine (9) years, nine (9) months and twenty-
three (23) days, which is well beyond the maximum penalty now imposed for his
offense. Whereas prior to the passage of this law, the crime of simple illegal
possession of firearms was penalized with reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua,[2] after its enactment, the penalty has been reduced
to prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen
Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00).[3]
Being favorable to the accused, this newly-enacted law constitutes an
exception to the fundamental doctrine that laws should be applied
prospectively. Further applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner should
be penalized with four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day as minimum, to six
(6) years as maximum. Petitioner, therefore, holds the distinction of being the first
beneficiary of this reduced penalty to favor him with its retroactive application.
The following recital of facts constitutes the backdrop for the application of
the new law.
Two separate informations were filed against petitioner Reynaldo Gonzales y
Rivera involving the crimes of attempted homicide and violation of Presidential
Decree No. 1866.
The Information for Attempted Homicide reads as follows:
The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Reynaldo Gonzales y Rivera of the crime
of attempted homicide, penalized under the provisions of Article 249 in connection
with Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
That on or about the 20th day of May, 1984, in the municipality of San Ildefonso,
province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, armed with a gun (Revolver, Caliber .22, Paltik) and with
intent to kill one Jaime Verde, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commenced the commission of homicide directly by overt acts, by then
did not accomplish his purpose, that is, to kill the said Jaime Verde, it was not
because of his spontaneous desistance, but the shot missed him and instead hit the
ground.
Contrary to law.
The Information for violation of P.D. No. 1866 reads:
The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Reynaldo Gonzales y Rivera of the crime
of illegal possession of firearm, penalized under Presidential Decree No. 1866,
committed as follows:
That on or about the 20th day of May, 1984, in the municipality of San Ildefonso,
province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the said accused Reynaldo Gonzales y Rivera, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously have in his possession and control one (1) Revolver, Caliber .22
(Paltik, without first obtaining the proper license or authority therefor).
Contrary to law.
A plea of not guilty having been entered, trial on the merits ensued.
The case for the prosecution is as follows:
On May 20, 1984, Jaime, Dionisio, and Zenaida all surnamed Verde were in
front of their house when, at about six oclock in the evening, petitioner Reynaldo
Gonzales and a certain Bening Paguia arrived in the premises. Without any
provocation, petitioner started to hurl invectives at Zenaida and pushed her.
Surprised at the unprovoked attack, Jaime tried to restrain the petitioner but
instead of allowing himself to be subdued, the latter turned on the former. Pulling
out his gun, he fired the same at Jaime but missed his mark. The incident was
thereafter reported to the police authorities which conducted a paraffin test that
showed that petitioners right hand was positive for gunpowder residue.
On the other hand, the version of the defense was as follows:
Petitioner testified that on the said date and time, he was with his barrio
mates when suddenly, a commotion attracted their attention. They saw a group of
persons chasing an unidentified person who was running towards their direction
with a gun in hand while the mob was shouting Harangin. During the chase, the
unidentified person accidentally fell and dropped the gun he was holding which
petitioner then grabbed.
 The fleeing person hastily boarded a passing bus. It was at this point that the
Verdes, who turned out to be the persons giving chase, demanded the gun from the
petitioner who, however, refused to surrender the same, as a result of which, a
scuffle ensued during which the gun accidentally went off without hitting anybody.
After trial, the court a quo acquitted the petitioner of the offense of
attempted homicide but found him guilty of the offense of illegal possession of
firearm, the dispositive portion of which reads:[4]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt
of Reynaldo Gonzales beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for Attempted
Homicide, he is hereby acquitted of the crime charged.
With respect to the charge of Illegal Possession of Firearms, the Court finds the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences him to a penalty
ranging from 17 years, 4 months, 1 day to 18 years, 8 months of Reclusion
Temporal, without pronouncement as to costs.
Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the petitioner asserted that the trial
court erred in not giving credence to the defenses narration of the incident and his
guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This argument did not
persuade the appellate court as it held that:[5]
Indeed, as correctly found by the trial court, the appellant did not grab the revolver
(paltik) in question (Exhibit A) from the unidentified person that he said. He drew it
from his pocket and intentionally fired it at Jaime Verde but missed him. He was,
therefore, in possession of it. And since it was a paltik for which no license to
possess may be issued (People vs. Fajardo, 17 SCRA 494), he is guilty of illegal
possession of firearm under Presidential Decree No. 1866. Accordingly, the trial
court did not commit any error in finding him guilty as charged.
In the instant petition, petitioner assigns the following errors to the trial court:
1. There is in this case material and substantial conflict between the
version of the prosecution and that of the defense that would lead a
reasonable mind to believe the improbability of the version of the
prosecution.
2. Respondent Court of Appeals committed a grave and serious error of
law in not finding/holding that the prosecution miserably failed to
establish the motive that would support the version of the
prosecution.
3. Petitioner was not aware of any preliminary investigation that would
create any inference adverse to his innocence.
4. The prosecution in this case failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the latter is entitled to acquittal.
We affirm the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
The main thesis of petitioners defense is that he inadvertently picked up the
gun accidentally dropped by an unidentified person who was being chased by the
Verdes. Thus, he cannot be convicted for illegal possession of firearm.
Completely contradicting petitioners version, we quote with approval the trial
courts finding:[6]
The testimony that the gun came from the unarmed (should be unidentified)
person who fell in front of him while being chased is again hard to believe. The
natural reaction of a person being chased in a hostile place is to remove hindrances
along his way. If he had a gun, as the accused would want the court to believe, he
could have used it against all persons who would block his way since there were
shouts harangin, harangin. On the other hand, the actuation of the accused is
contrary to common observation and experience. No person in his right mind would
approach a person holding a gun being chased and there were shouts harangin,
harangin.
In addition, petitioners narration is not in conformity with human experience
and reactions. We likewise note the incredible assertion of the petitioner that the
unidentified person, after tripping and dropping the gun, was able to board a slow
moving bus without even attempting to retrieve his weapon. Such a hollow tale
hardly commends itself to our mind.
Also, petitioner bewails the fact that no preliminary investigation was
conducted. While the right to preliminary investigation is one that is statutorily
granted and not mandated by the Constitution, still it is a component part of due
process in criminal justice[7] that may not be treated lightly, let alone ignored. It has
been consistently held, however, that its absence does not impair the validity of the
criminal information or render it defective. In any case, dismissal of the case is not
the remedy.[8] It is incumbent on the trial court to hold in abeyance the proceedings
upon such information and to remand the case to the fiscal to conduct a
preliminary investigation if the accused actually makes out a case justifying the
same.[9]
Conversely, it is a well-settled rule that the right to a preliminary investigation
may be waived by the failure to invoke it prior to or at least at the time of the
accuseds plea.[10] Thus, when the petitioner entered a plea to the charge, [11] he is
deemed to have waived the right to preliminary investigation.[12]
 Having set aside the procedural aspect of this petition, we now proceed to case open for review, the appellate court may, applying the new law, additionally
determine whether the petitioner is indeed guilty of the offense of illegal impose a fine, which if unpaid, will subject the convict to subsidiary imprisonment,
possession of firearm. pursuant to Art. 39 of the Revised Penal Code.[20]
In cases involving illegal possession of firearm, there are certain well- WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining petitioners
established principles, namely: (a) the existence of the subject firearm and (b) the conviction by the lower court of the crime of simple illegal possession of firearm is
fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the penalty is reduced to four (4) years
corresponding license or permit to possess.[13] The first requisite is beyond dispute and two (2) months, as minimum, to six (6) years, as maximum.
as the subject firearm was recovered, identified and offered in evidence during
Since the petitioner has already served nine (9) years, nine (9) months and
trial.[14] With respect to the second requisite, the same was undisputably proven by
twenty-three (23) days, which is well beyond the maximum principal penalty
the prosecution. The unvarying rule is that ownership is not an essential element of
illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely imposed for his offense, as well as the subsidiary penalty for the unpaid fine, he is
hereby ordered RELEASED immediately, unless he is being held for some other
possession which includes, not only actual physical possession, but also constructive
lawful cause.
possession or the subjection of the thing to ones control and management. [15]
In the instant petition, there is no doubt that the petitioner is indeed guilty of SO ORDERED.
having intentionally possessed an unlicensed firearm. The testimony of the Regalado, (Chairman), Puno, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
petitioner that he came into possession of the firearm only after a scuffle, is a lame
defense which cannot overcome the solid evidence presented by the prosecution
proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On this score, we note that a
prosecution witness testified that petitioner pulled the gun from his waist and fired
a shot aimed at Jaime Verdes foot.[16]
Thus, we have no reservations in affirming petitioners conviction since we find
no compelling reason to depart from the factual findings of both the trial court and
the respondent appellate court which are, as a rule, accorded great respect and
finality.[17]
As regards the penalty imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the
appellate court (17 years, 4 months, 1 day to 18 years, 8 months of reclusion
temporal), we reduce the same in view of the passage of R.A. No. 8294 wherein the
penalty for simple illegal possession of firearms has been lowered. Since it is an
elementary rule in criminal jurisprudence that penal laws shall be given retroactive
effect when favorable to the accused,[18] we are now mandated to apply the new
law in determining the proper penalty to be imposed on the petitioner.
While prior to the passage of R.A. No. 8294, the crime of simple illegal
possession of firearm was penalized with reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua, after its enactment, the penalty was reduced to prision
correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen Thousand
Pesos (P15,000.00).
Accordingly, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the principal penalty
for the offense of simple illegal possession of firearm is four (4) years and two (2)
months as minimum, to six (6) years, as maximum[19] and a fine of P15,000.00.
Consistent with the doctrine that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole