G.R. No. 95523 - REYNALDO GONZALES Y RIVERA, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

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 accuse