G.R. No. 253504 - ROEL PABLO Y PASCUAL, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor , as minimum, to eleven (11) years and four (4) months of prision mayor , as maximum, to wit: WHEREFORE , judgement is hereby rendered as follows: 1. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-08421-CR, the Court finds accused Roel Pablo y Pascual GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violating Section 28 (a) in relation to Section 28 (e) of Republic Act No. 10591, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act" and he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years one (1) day of prision mayor medium as minimum to eleven (11) years and four (4) months of prision mayor maximum as maximum; and, 2. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-08422-CR, the Court finds accused Alvin Teriapel y Mira GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violating Section 28(g) of Republic Act No. 10591, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act" and he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor minimum as minimum to seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor minimum as maximum. Accused Roel Pablo y Pascual shall be credited with the full period of his preventive imprisonment, subject to the conditions imposed under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. SO ORDERED . [17] The RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime charged through: ( a ) the testimonies of the police officers who identified all the seized items in open court; and ( b ) the Certification [18] dated July 13, 2017 issued by Police Superintendent Marieta N. Garrido, Assistant Chief, FLD, Firearms and Explosive Office, PNP, stating that both petitioner and his co-accused are not licensed or registered firearm holders of any kind and caliber nor were they authorized to possess ammunition on September 13, 2015. On the other hand, petitioner's defense of denial was ruled to be self-serving as it was not supported by strong evidence of nonculpability. The RTC further ruled that petitioner failed to show any motive for the prosecution's witnesses to falsely testily, and thus his denial could not be given more credence than their testimony. [19] Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal [20] before the CA. In his appeal, petitioner contended that the search conducted on him by PO1 Nadura was not incidental to a lawful arrest; hence, the seized firearm and ammunition are inadmissible as evidence. Petitioner notes that the search preceded his arrest, as he was not arrested for the traffic violation but for the illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. [21] Petitioner also argued that the RTC erred in ruling that his failure to adduce evidence of the ill motive of the arresting police officers discredits his defense of denial. Petitioner as