PEOPLE V. DE GRACIA G. R. Nos. 102009-10 July 6, 1994
FACTS:
l Reform the Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP) staged a coup d’état on December 1989 against the Government.
l Efren Soria of Intelligence Division, NCR Defense Command, together with his team, conducted a surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office in EDSA, QC .
l Such surveillance was conducted pursuant to an intelligence report that the said establishment was being occupied by the elements of the RAM-SFP as communication command post.
l Near the Eurocar office, there were crowd watching the on-going bombardment near Camp Aguinaldo when a group of five men disengaged themselves and walked towards their surveillance car.
l Major Soria ordered the driver to start the car and leave the area. However, as they passed the area, the five men drew their guns and fired at them, which resulted to the wounding of the driver.
l Nobody in the surveillance team retaliated for they were afraid that civilians might be caught in the crossfire.
l Thereafter, the search team raided the Eurocar Sales Office and confiscated 6 cartons of M-16 ammunition, 5 bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different calibers, and molotov.
l Obenia, who first entered the establishment, found De Gracia holding a C-4 and suspiciously peeping through the door in the office of a certain Colonel Matillano,
l No search warrant was secured by the raiding team because, according to them, there was so much disorder considering that the nearby Camp Aguinaldo was being mopped up by the rebel forces and there was simultaneous firing within the vicinity of the Eurocar office, aside from the fact that the courts were consequently closed.
l Appellant was convicted for illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion but was acquitted of attempted homicide.
ISSUE/S:
WON appellant is guilty of illegal possession of firearms
WON there were a valid search and seizure in this case.
HELD:
1. YES. There is no doubt in our minds that appellant De Gracia is indeed guilty of having intentionally possessed several firearms, explosives, and ammunition without the requisite license or authority therefor.
Presidential Decree No. 1866 was passed because of an upsurge of crimes vitally affecting public order and safety due to the proliferation of illegally possessed and manufactured firearms, ammunition and explosives, and which criminal acts have resulted in the loss of human lives, damage to property and destruction of valuable resources of the country. The series of coup d' etats unleashed in the country during the first few years of the transitional government under then President Corazon P. Aquino attest to the ever-growing importance of laws such as Presidential Decree No. 1866 which seek to nip in the bud and preempt the commission of any act or acts which tend to disturb public peace and order.
The rule is that ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession which includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to one's control and management.
Moreover, When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law.
The Prosecution witness Sgt. Oscar Abenia categorically testified that he was the first one to enter the Eurocar Sales Office when the military operatives raided the same, and he saw De Gracia standing in the room and holding the several explosives marked in evidence as Exhibits D to D-4. 13 At first, appellant denied any knowledge about the explosives. Then, he alternatively contended that his act of guarding the explosives for and in behalf of Col. Matillano does not constitute illegal possession thereof because there was no intent on his part to possess the same since he was merely employed as an errand boy of Col. Matillano. His pretension of impersonal or indifferent material possession does not and cannot inspire credence.
2. YES. It is a valid search and seizure.
The instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a warrantless search. In the first place, the military operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed. There was consequently more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action. Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts. The trial judge himself manifested that on December 5, 1989 when the raid was conducted, his court was closed. 19 Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.