G.R. No. 142295 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused VICENTE DEL ROSARIO y NICOLAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of P. D. No. 1866 as charged under the Information dated June 17, 1996. "Conformably with the provisions of said law, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, and pursuant to the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correctional, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00)." [5] On July 20, 1998, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, assailing the decision for being contrary to facts and the law. [6] On July 9, 1999, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision affirming with modification the decision of the trial court as set out in the opening paragraph of this decision. [7] On August 10, 1999, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial. [8] He contended that the certification issued by the Chief, Firearms and Explosives Division, Philippine National Police stating that the person named therein had not been issued a firearm license referred to a certain Vicente "Vic" del Rosario of barangay Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan, not to him. He comes from barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan, and that he has a valid firearm license. On February 22, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. [9] Hence, this appeal. [10] Petitioner submits that the search conducted at his residence was illegal as the search warrant was issued in violation of the Constitution [11] and consequently, the evidence seized was inadmissible. He also submits that he had a license for the .45 caliber firearm and ammunition seized in his bedroom. The other firearm, a .22 caliber revolver seized in a drawer at the kitchen of his house, a magazine for 5.56 mm. cal. Armalite rifle, and two 2-way radios found in his daughter's bedroom, were either planted by the police or illegally seized, as they were not mentioned in the search warrant. We find the petition impressed with merit. We define the issues as follows: First : whether petitioner had a license for the .45 caliber Colt pistol and ammunition seized in his bedroom; and Second : whether the .22 caliber revolver seized in a drawer at the kitchen of his house, a magazine for 5.56 mm. cal. Armalite rifle and two 2-way radios found in his daughter's bedroom, were planted by the police or were illegally seized. We shall resolve the issues in seriatim. First: The .45 cal. Colt pistol in question was duly licensed. Normally, we do not review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial courts. [12] However, this case comes within the exceptions. [13] The "findings of fact by the Court of Appeals will not be disturbed by the Court unless these findings are not supported by evidence." [14] In this case, the findings of the lower courts eve