THIRD DIVISION Petitioner was then brought to the police station for questioning.
13
G.R. No. 164815 February 22, 2008
SR. INSP. JERRY C. VALEROSO, petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
DECISION
REYES, R.T., J.:
THE law looks forward, never backward. Lex prospicit, non respicit. A new law has a
prospective, not retroactive, effect.1 However, penal laws that favor a guilty person,
who is not a habitual criminal, shall be given retroactive effect.1-a These are the rule,
the exception and exception to the exception on effectivity of laws.
Ang batas ay tumitingin sa hinaharap, hindi sa nakaraan. Gayunpaman,
ang parusa ng bagong batas ay iiral kung ito ay pabor sa taong
nagkasala na hindi pusakal na kriminal.
We apply the exception rather than the rule in this petition for review on certiorari
of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), affirming with modification that of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Quezon City, finding petitioner liable for illegal
possession of a firearm.
The Facts
On July 10, 1996, at around 9:30 a.m., SPO2 Antonio M. Disuanco of the Criminal
Investigation Division, Central Police District Command, received a dispatch
order2 from the desk officer.3 The order directed him and three (3) other policemen
to serve a warrant of arrest4 issued by Judge Ignacio Salvador against petitioner Sr.
Insp. Jerry C. Valeroso in a case for kidnapping with ransom. 5
After a briefing, the team conducted the necessary surveillance on petitioner,
checking his hideouts in Cavite, Caloocan, and Bulacan.6 Eventually, the team
proceeded to the Integrated National Police (INP) Central Station at Culiat, Quezon
City, where they saw petitioner as he was about to board a tricycle. 7 SPO2 Disuanco
and his team approached petitioner.8 They put him under arrest, informed him of
his constitutional rights, and bodily searched him. 9 Found tucked in his waist10 was a
Charter Arms, bearing Serial Number 5231511 with five (5) live ammunition.12
A verification of the subject firearm at the Firearms and Explosives Division at Camp
Crame revealed that it was not issued to petitioner but to a certain Raul Palencia
Salvatierra of Sampaloc, Manila.14 Epifanio Deriquito, the records verifier, presented
a certification15 to that effect signed by Edwin C. Roque, chief records officer of the
Firearms and Explosive Division.16
Petitioner was then charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition
under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866,17 as amended. The Information read:
That on or about the 10th day of July, 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
said accused without any authority of law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her possession and under his/her
custody and control
One (1) cal. 38 "Charter Arms" revolver bearing Serial No. 52315 with five
(5) live ammo. without first having secured the necessary license/permit
issued by the proper authorities.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Quezon City, Philippines, July 15, 1996.
(Sgd.)
GLORIA VICTORIA C. YAP
Assistant City Prosecutor18
With the assistance of his counsel de parte, Atty. Oscar Pagulayan, petitioner
pleaded not guilty when arraigned on October 9, 1996.19 Trial on the merits ensued.
SPO2 Disuanco and Deriquito testified for the prosecution in the manner stated
above.
Upon the other hand, the defense version was supplied by the combined
testimonies of petitioner Sr. Insp. Jerry C. Valeroso, SPO3 Agustin R. Timbol, Jr. and
Adrian Yuson.
Petitioner recounted that on July 10, 1996, he was fast asleep in the boarding house
of his children located at Sagana Homes, Barangay New Era, Quezon City.20 He was
roused from his slumber when four (4) heavily armed men in civilian clothes bolted
the room.21 They trained their guns at him22 and pulled him out of the room. They
then tied his hands and placed him near the faucet.23 The raiding team went back
inside and searched and ransacked the room.24 SPO2 Disuanco stood guard outside
with him.25 Moments later, an operative came out of the room and
exclaimed, "Hoy, may nakuha akong baril sa loob!"26
Petitioner was told by SPO2 Disuanco that "we are authorized to shoot you because
there’s a shoot to kill order against you, so if you are planning do so something, do
it right now."27 He was also told that there was a standing warrant for his
arrest.28 However, he was not shown any proof when he asked for it. 29 Neither was
the raiding group armed with a valid search warrant.30
According to petitioner, the search done in the boarding house was illegal. The gun
seized from him was duly licensed and covered by necessary permits. He was,
however, unable to present the documentation relative to the firearm because it
was confiscated by the police. Petitioner further lamented that when he was
incarcerated, he was not allowed to engage the services of a counsel. Neither was
he allowed to see or talk to his family.31
Petitioner contended that the police had an axe to grind against him. While still
with the Narcotics Command, he turned down a request of Col. Romulo Sales to
white-wash a drug-related investigation involving friends of the said police officer.
Col. Sales was likewise subject of a complaint filed with the Ombudsman by his
wife. Col. Sales was later on appointed as the head of the unit that conducted the
search in his boarding house.32
SPO3 Timbol, Jr. of the Narcotics Command testified that he issued to petitioner a
Memorandum Receipt dated July 1, 199333 covering the subject firearm and its
ammunition. This was upon the verbal instruction of Col. Angelito Moreno. SPO3
Timbol identified his signature34 on the said receipt.35
Adrian Yuson, an occupant of the room adjacent to where petitioner was arrested,
testified that on July 10, 1996, two (2) policemen suddenly entered his room as he
was preparing for school.36 They grabbed his shoulder and led him out. 37 During all
those times, a gun was poked at him.38 He was asked where petitioner was staying.
Fearing for his life, he pointed to petitioner’s room.39
Four (4) policemen then entered the room. 40 He witnessed how they pointed a gun
at petitioner, who was clad only in his underwear.41 He also witnessed how they
forcibly brought petitioner out of his room. 42 While a policeman remained near the
faucet to guard petitioner, three (3) others went back inside the room. 43 They
began searching the whole place. They forcibly opened his locker, 44 which yielded
the subject firearm.45
RTC and CA Dispositions
On May 6, 1998, the trial court found petitioner guilty as charged, disposing as
follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as
amended by Republic Act No. 8294 and hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or from 4 years, 2
months and 1 day as minimum to 6 years as maximum and to pay the fine
in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00).
The gun subject of this case is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the
government. Let the same be put in trust in the hands of the Chief of the
PNP.
SO ORDERED.46
Petitioner moved to reconsider47 but his motion was denied on August 27,
1998.48 He appealed to the CA.
On May 4, 2004, the appellate court affirmed with modification the RTC disposition.
The fallo of the CA decision reads:
Verily, the penalty imposed by the trial court upon the accused-appellant is
modified to 4 years and 2 months as minimum up to 6 years as maximum.
WHEREFORE, with the foregoing MODIFICATION as to the penalty, the
decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.49
His motion for reconsideration50 having been denied through a Resolution dated
August 3, 2004,51 petitioner resorted to the present petition under Rule 45.
Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues for Our consideration:
I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF
LAW IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER DESPITE THE
ABSENCE OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
 II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF
FACT AND LAW IN SUSTAINING THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH AND THE
VALIDITY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED
THEREFROM DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING PROOF THAT THE SAME IS THE
FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE.
III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF
LAW IN NOT UPHOLDING THE REGULARITY AND VALIDITY SURROUNDING
THE ISSUANCE OF THE MEMORANDUM RECEIPTS (SIC) IN FAVOR OF
PETITIONER WHICH PROVES HIS INNOCENCE OF THE CRIME CHARGE
(SIC).52 (Underscoring supplied)
Our Ruling
In illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, the prosecution has the burden of
proving the twin elements of (1) the existence of the subject firearm and
ammunition, and (2) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same
does not have the corresponding license for it.53
The prosecution was able to discharge its burden.
The existence of the subject firearm and its ammunition was established through
the testimony of SPO2 Disuanco.54 Defense witness Yuson also identified the
firearm.55 Its existence was likewise admitted by no less than petitioner himself. 56
As for petitioner’s lack of authority to possess the firearm, Deriquito testified that a
verification of the Charter Arms Caliber .38 bearing Serial No. 52315 with the
Firearms and Explosives Division at Camp Crame revealed that the seized pistol was
not issued to petitioner. It was registered in the name of a certain Raul Palencia
Salvatierra of Sampaloc, Manila.57 As proof, Deriquito presented a certification
signed by Roque, the chief records officer of the same office. 58
The Court on several occasions ruled that either the testimony of a representative
of, or a certification from, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and
Explosive Office attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm would
suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of possession of
illegal firearms.59 The prosecution more than complied when it presented both.
The certification is outside the scope of the hearsay rule.
The general rule is that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of
his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own
perception.60 Otherwise, the testimony is objectionable for being hearsay.61
On this score, the certification from the Firearms and Explosives Division is an
exception to the hearsay rule by virtue of Rule 130, Section 44 of the Rules of Court
which provides:
Sec. 44. Entries in official records. – Entries in official records made in the
performance of his official duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by
a person in the performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law,
are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
It may be true that the contents of said certification are only prima facie evidence
of the facts stated there. However, the failure of petitioner to present controverting
evidence makes the presumption unrebutted. Thus, the presumption stands.
Petitioner, however, raises several points which he says entitles him to no less than
an acquittal.
The assessment of credibility of witnesses lies with the trial court.
First, petitioner says that the seizure of the subject firearm was invalid. The search
was conducted after his arrest and after he was taken out of the room he was
occupying.62
This contention deserves scant consideration.
Petitioner’s version of the manner and place of his arrest goes into the factual
findings made by the trial court and its calibration of the credibility of witnesses.
However, as aptly put by Justice Ynares-Santiago in People v. Rivera:63
x x x the manner of assigning values to declarations of witnesses on the
witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge
who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess
their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected on record.
The demeanor of the person on the stand can draw the line between fact
and fancy or evince if the witness is telling the truth or lying through his
teeth. We have consistently ruled that when the question arises as to
which of the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense is
worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial courts are generally viewed as
correct and entitled to great weight. Furthermore, in an appeal, where the
 culpability or innocence of the accused depends on the issue of credibility
of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court
are given the highest degree of respect if not finality.64 (Underscoring
supplied)
The trial court found the prosecution version worthy of credence and belief. We
find no compelling reason not to accept its observation on this score.
Worth noting is the fact that petitioner is a ranking police officer who not only
claims to be highly decorated,65 but have effected a number of successful
arrests66 as well. Common sense would dictate that he must necessarily be
authorized to carry a gun. We thus agree with the Office of the Solicitor General
that framing up petitioner would have been a very risky proposition. Had the
arresting officers really intended to cause the damnation of petitioner by framing
him up, they could have easily "planted" a more incriminating evidence rather than
a gun. That would have made their nefarious scheme easier, assuming that there
indeed was one.
The pieces of evidence show that petitioner is not legally authorized to possess the
subject firearm and its five (5) ammunition.
Second, petitioner insists that he is legally authorized to possess the subject firearm
and its ammunition on the basis of the Memorandum Receipt issued to him by the
PNP Narcotics Command.67
Although petitioner is correct in his submission that public officers like policemen
are accorded presumption of regularity in the performance of their official
duties,68 it is only a presumption; it may be overthrown by evidence to the contrary.
The prosecution was able to rebut the presumption when it proved that the
issuance to petitioner of the Memorandum Receipt was anything but regular.
SPO3 Timbol, Jr. testified that he issued the Memorandum Receipt to petitioner
based on the verbal instruction of his immediate superior, Col. Moreno. 69 However,
a reading of Timbol’s testimony on cross-examination70 would reveal that there was
an unusual facility by which said receipt was issued to petitioner. Its issuance utterly
lacked the usual necessary bureaucratic constraints. Clearly, it was issued to
petitioner under questionable circumstances.
Failure to offer an unlicensed firearm as evidence is not fatal provided there is
competent testimony as to its existence.
Third, petitioner claims that the subject firearm and ammunition should have been
excluded as evidence because they were not formally offered by the
prosecution71 in violation of Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.72
We note that petitioner contradicted himself when he argued for the validity of the
Memorandum Receipt and, at the same time, for the exclusion in evidence of the
subject firearm and its ammunition. Petitioner’s act may result to an absurd
situation where the Memorandum Receipt is declared valid, while the subject
firearm and its ammunition which are supposedly covered by the Memorandum
Receipt are excluded as evidence. That would have made the Memorandum Receipt
useless.
In any case, petitioner’s contention has no leg to stand on.
Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the subject firearm 73 and its five (5) live
ammunition74 were offered in evidence by the prosecution.75 Even
assuming arguendo that they were not offered, petitioner’s stance must still fail.
The existence of an unlicensed firearm may be established by testimony, even
without its presentation at trial. In People v. Orehuela,76 the non-presentation of
the pistol did not prevent the conviction of the accused.
The doctrine was affirmed in the recent case of People v. Malinao.77
As previously stated, the existence of the subject firearm and its five (5) live
ammunition were established through the testimony of SPO2 Disuanco. 78 Yuson
also identified said firearm.79 Petitioner even admitted its existence.80
We hasten to add that there may also be conviction where an unlicensed firearm is
presented during trial but through inadvertence, negligence, or fortuitous event
(for example, if it is lost), it is not offered in evidence, as long as there is competent
testimony as to its existence.
Penal and civil liabilities
Petitioner was charged with the crime of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition under the first paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended. It
provides that "[t]he penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any firearm, part of firearm,
ammunition or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the
manufacture of any firearm or ammunition."
P.D. No. 1866, as amended, was the governing law at the time petitioner among others, that the proceeds and instruments or tools of the crime shall be
committed the offense on July 10, 1996. However, R.A. No. 8294 amended P.D. No. confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government.
1866 on July 6, 1997,81 during the pendency of the case with the trial court. The
present law now states: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 4, 2004
is AFFIRMED in full.
SECTION 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or
Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to SO ORDERED.
be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. – The penalty
of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than
Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed upon any person who
shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any low-
powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of
similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or
instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm
or ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was committed.
(Underscoring supplied)

As a general rule, penal laws should not have retroactive application, lest they
acquire the character of an ex post facto law.82 An exception to this rule, however,
is when the law is advantageous to the accused. According to Mr. Chief Justice
Araullo, this is "not as a right" of the offender, "but founded on the very principles
on which the right of the State to punish and the commination of the penalty are
based, and regards it not as an exception based on political considerations, but as a
rule founded on principles of strict justice."83

Although an additional fine of P15,000.00 is imposed by R.A. No. 8294, the same is
still advantageous to the accused, considering that the imprisonment
is lowered to prision correccional in its maximum period84 from reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua85 under P.D. No. 1866.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, prision correccional maximum which

ranges from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, is the
prescribed penalty and will form the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.
The minimum term shall be one degree lower, which is prision correccional in its
medium period (two [2] years, four [4] months and one [1] day to four [4] years and
two [2] months).86 Hence, the penalty imposed by the CA is correct. The penalty of
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum
term, to six (6) years of prision correccional maximum, as maximum term, is in
consonance with the Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. Court of Appeals87 and Barredo v.
Vinarao.88

As to the subject firearm and its five (5) live ammunition, their proper disposition
should be made under Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code89 which provides,