R e p u b l i c o f th e P h i l i p p i n e s

R e g i o n a l Tr i a l C o ur t
S i x t h J u d i c i a l Re g i o n
B r a n c h 1 , I lo i l o C i t y

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

CRIMINAL CASE NO.

_________
For:

versus
ROGER GONZALES Y PENACHOS,
Accused.

Violation of P.D. No. 1866

as Amended by R. A.
No. 8294

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 527-07

PEOPLE VS ROGER P. GONZALES
APPELLEES BRIEF
Dated January17,2014
x-------------------------------------------------x

Page 2 of 11

Pursuant to the
Notice of this Honorable Court,
Plaintiff-Appellee
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

through the Iloilo City Prosecution Office, most respectfully submit

APPELLEES BRIEF

SUBJECT INDEX
Table of Authorities
Preliminary Statement of the Case
Statement of Issues Presented
Statement of Facts
Counter-Arguments
Arguments
Conclusion
Prayer

4
5
6
6
9
9
11
12

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 527-07

PEOPLE VS ROGER P. GONZALES
APPELLEES BRIEF
Dated January17,2014
x-------------------------------------------------x

Page 3 of 11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Jurisprudence__________________ ________________________________
Malacat vs. CA, G.R. No. 123595, December 12, 1997
People vs Chua, G.R. No. 136066-67, February 4, 2003
Terry vs Ohio, 392 U.S. June 10, 1968

Laws and Statutes_______________

__________________________Page_

P. D. No. 1866 as amended by R. A. No. 8294

Revised Penal COde

R e p u b l i c o f th e P h i l i p p i n e s
R e g i o n a l Tr i a l C o ur t

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 527-07

PEOPLE VS ROGER P. GONZALES
APPELLEES BRIEF
Dated January17,2014
x-------------------------------------------------x

Page 4 of 11

S i x t h J u d i c i a l Re g i o n
B r a n c h 1 , I lo i l o C i t y

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

CRIMINAL CASE NO.

_________
For:

versus

Violation of P.D. No. 1866

as Amended by R. A.
No. 8294

ROGER GONZALES Y PENACHOS,

Accused.
x-------------------------------------------------x
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff-appellee, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, the plaintiff in
the lower court represented by the Iloilo City Prosecutor charged herein
defendant-appellant with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions 1.
Through this appeal, accused-appellant, Roger Gonzales y Penachos,assails
the judgment dated May 30, 2011 rendered by Judge Enrique Z. Trespeces
of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 10, Iloilo City, finding him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal possession of firearms punishable
1

Section 1. Sec.1 Presidential Decree No. 1866 , as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
Sec. 1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms or
ammunition or instruments used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms or
ammunition. The penalty of prisioncorreccional 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. (As amended
by R.A. No. 8294)

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 527-07

PEOPLE VS ROGER P. GONZALES
APPELLEES BRIEF
Dated January17,2014
x-------------------------------------------------x

Page 5 of 11

under Section 1 Paragraph 1 of P.D. No. 1886 as amended by R.A. No.

8294.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED
First Issue:
Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting Defendant-appellee
Roger P. Gonzales for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition
punishable under Section 1 Paragraph 1 of P.D. No. 1886 as amended by
R.A. No. 8294.
Second Issue:
Whether or not the lower court correctly apply in imposing the
penalty of 2years 4 months and 1 day of prisioncorreccional as maximum
and in imposing a fine of Php 15,000.00
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The lower court convicted accused-appellant Gonzales of Illegal
possession of firearms punishable under Section 1 Paragraph 1 of P.D. No.
1886 as amended by R.A. No. 8294. The case was docketed as Criminal
Case No. 527-07. The accusatory portion reads:
That on or about December 14, 2007, the City of Iloilo,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said
accused with deliberate intent and without any justifiable motive, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally have in his possession and
control one (1) single shot homemade 12 gauge shotgun (hand gun) a low
powered firearm, and one (1) live ammunition, without having the
necessary permit or authority to possess the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW.2

Record, p.1.

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 527-07

PEOPLE VS ROGER P. GONZALES
APPELLEES BRIEF
Dated January17,2014
x-------------------------------------------------x

Page 6 of 11

Upon being arraigned, the accused-appellant Gonzales pleaded not

guilty to the crime charged.
3

However, the prosecution established the guilt of accused-appellant

Gonzales beyond reasonable doubt by presenting as evidence the testimonies
of SPO1 Alex Gaddi4 and PO3 Rex Tabuada5.
SPO1 Alex Gaddi and PO3 Rex Tabuada, officer on duty, at the Jaro
Police Station, Jaro, Iloilo City, testified that on December 14, 2007 at
around 9:00 oclock in the morning, they were able to receive a phone call
from Helie D. Magante, live-in partner of the accused-appellant, asking for
police assistance.6 Immediately, they proceeded to the place of incident.
When they arrived at M.V. Hechanova, Helie instantly complained to the
responding policemen that accused-appellant is armed with a gun and
always threatening her.7As the accused-appellant Gonzales, who was
carrying a knapsack, was coming out of the gate, Helie pinpointed him to the
policemen. SPO1 Gaddi approached the accused-appellant8 and stopped
him.9 Then he asked the accused to open his knapsack 10 and the accused
opened it.Then SPO1 GaddiaskedWhat was bulging?11And the accusedappellant brought a short-barreled shotgun and voluntarily gave it to SPO1
Gaddi.12SPO1 Gaddi checked the gun if it was loaded. 13SPO1 Gaddi then
queried about his license to possess and carry a firearm, but the accused
failed to show any papers.14 When SPO1 Gaddi arrested the accusedappellant, he informed him the accused of his constitutional
right.15HelieMaganteturned over one live ammunition.16
3

Record, p. 47, assisted by Atty. Gualberto V. Catalua, Jr., Counsel of Record for the accused.
TSN dated April29, 2009
5
TSN dated July 1, 2009
6
TSN, April 29, 2009, p. 5.
7
TSN, July 1, 2009, p. 5.
8
Id, p. 6,
9
TSN, August 6, 2010, p. 6.
10
TSN, July 1, 2009, p. 6; TSN, April 29, 2009, p. 6.
11
TSN, April 29, 2009, p. 6.
12
Id, Exhibit D
13
Id, p. 8.
14
Id.
15
Id.
16
Exhibit D-1.
4

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 527-07

PEOPLE VS ROGER P. GONZALES
APPELLEES BRIEF
Dated January17,2014
x-------------------------------------------------x

Page 7 of 11

SPO4 Vicente, who was authorized by Police Superintendent

EdithaHinlo, Chief, Record Section, Firearms and Explosives Division,
Philippine National Police, to testify, 17 identified the Certification dated
September 24, 2008 issued by P/Superintendent Hinlo that the accused is not
a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber.18
On May 30, 2011, on the strength of prosecutions evidence as against
the weak evidence of the defense, the lower court promulgated its decision.
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:19
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Roger Penachos
Gonzales GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of
firearms punished under Section 1, Paragraph 1 of P.D. No. 1886 as
amended by R. A. No. 8294, and sentences him to an indeterminate
penalty of, absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, two (2)
years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prisioncorreccional, as
minimum, to four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of
prisioncorreccional, as maximum; and impose a fine of P15,000.00.
The firearm and one live ammunition are confiscated in favor of
the State.
SO ORDERED.

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff-appellee raises the following counter-arguments to the
assignment of errors raised by the accused-appellant:

17

Record, p. 265, Letter Order No. 09-26-08-006, Exhibit F

TSN, p. 4, September 29, 2008; Record, p. 264, Exhibit E.
19
Decision, p. 8,9.
18

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 527-07

PEOPLE VS ROGER P. GONZALES
APPELLEES BRIEF
Dated January17,2014
x-------------------------------------------------x

Page 8 of 11

1. The testimonies of the prosecution witness and pieces of

evidence established all the essential elements of the crime
andsatisfied the crucible test of reasonable doubt to overthrow
the Constitutional guaranty of presumption of innocence and
clearly established the accused-appellants guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
2. The Court correctly appreciated the genuine reason to warrant
the search and to impose the penalty of two (2) years, four (4)
months, and one (1) day of prisioncorreccional, as minimum, to
four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of
prisioncorreccional, as maximum; and impose a fine of
P15,000.00.
ARGUMENTS
1. The testimonies of the prosecution witness satisfied the crucible test of reasonable
doubt to overthrow the Constitutional guaranty of presumption of innocence and
clearly established the accused-appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The constitutional prescription against warrantless searches and

seizure is not absolute and admits certain exceptions and one of those is stop
and frisk situations as in the case of Terry v Ohio.
It is not controverted that the search and seizure conducted by the
police officers in the present case was not authorized by a search warrant. It
is a valid stop and frisk. In order that the stop and frisk be valid there must
be a reason given the police officers experience and surrounding conditions,
to warrant the belief that the person has weapons concealed; mere suspicion
or hunch will not validate a stop and frisk.
The call of Helie suffice the first element of the a valid stop and frisk
which moved the police officers to investigate the knapsack of accusedappellant who is coming out of the residence.

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 527-07

PEOPLE VS ROGER P. GONZALES
APPELLEES BRIEF
Dated January17,2014
x-------------------------------------------------x

Page 9 of 11

The second element states that it must serve a two-fold interest- (a)
the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which
underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes
of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause, and
(b) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit
the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom
he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and
fatally be used against the police officer.20
The police officers have sufficient genuine reason to stop the accused
to investigate if he was actually possessed a firearm when Helie complained
to them that accused-appellant was armed and threatening her.
Afterwards, accused-appellant was asked to open his knapsack then
something bulging was eyed by the police officer. When asked what was
bulging, he voluntarily surrendered the short-barreled gun.
The last element, the seizure must precede the arrest.21
Upon surrendering the short-barreled gun, the accused-appelllant was
asked for a license to possess and carry firearm but the accused failed to
show. Hence, the police officers arrested the accused-appellant.
Although, the testimony of SPO1Gaddi22 is enough to warrant
conviction, it was corroborated by the testimony of PO1 Tabuada. 23 They
even presented the short-barreled shotgun24 and one live ammunition.25

20

See Malacat v. CA, G. R. No. 123595, December 12, 1997

People vs Chua, G. R. No. 136066267, February 4, 2003
22
TSN, April 29. 2009.
23
TSN, July 1, 2009.
24
Exhibit D
25
Exhibit D-1.
21

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 527-07

PEOPLE VS ROGER P. GONZALES
APPELLEES BRIEF
Dated January17,2014
x-------------------------------------------------x

Page 10 of 11

The applicable laws and jurisprudence clearly established that

testimonies of the prosecution witness are credible enough to establish the
accused-appellants commission of the crime.
The police officers, especially SPO1 Gaddi and PO3 Tabuada, were
not prompted by some sinister motive in accusing the accused for illegal
possession of firearms.
Mere fact that the accused-appellant possessed the unlicensed firearm
without license to possess or carry the same constitute a violation of P. D.
1866 as amended by R. A. No. 8294.
2. The Court correctly appreciated the genuine reason to warrant the search and to
impose the penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of
prisioncorreccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1)
day of prisioncorreccional, as maximum; and impose a fine of P15,000.00.

The Revised Penal Code provides that a penalty was correctly applied
as it is if it is within the provision of penalties provided by the Special Law.

CONCLUSION
Therefore the Municipal Trial Court Branch 10 of Iloilo City did not err
in convicting the accused for Illegal possession of firearms and imposed the
correct penalty.
PRAYER
VIEWED IN THE FOREGOING LIGHT, it is respectfully prayed
for that the instant appeal be DENIED for lack of merit and the decision of
the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 10 be affirmed in toto.

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 527-07

PEOPLE VS ROGER P. GONZALES
APPELLEES BRIEF
Dated January17,2014
x-------------------------------------------------x

Page 11 of 11

Other relief and remedies as are just and equitable, are likewise
prayed for.
January 17, 2014
Iloilo City, Philippines
ILOILO CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE
Ramon Avancena Building, Bonifacio Street,
Iloilo City, Philippines
By

Prosecutor Arnulfo Francisco

Public Prosecutor