THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 164815 : February 22, 2008]

SR. INSP. JERRY C. VALEROSO, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

REYES, R.T., J.:

THE law looks forward, never backward. Lex prospicit, non respicit. A new law has a prospective,
not retroactive, effect.1 However, penal laws that favor a guilty person, who is not a habitual
criminal, shall be given retroactive effect.1-a These are the rule, the exception and exception to
the exception on effectivity of laws.

Ang batas ay tumitingin sa hinaharap, hindi sa nakaraan. Gayunpaman, ang parusa ng

bagong batas ay iiral kung ito ay pabor sa taong nagkasala na hindi pusakal na
kriminal.

We apply the exception rather than the rule in this Petition for Review on Certiorari of the
decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), affirming with modification that of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in Quezon City, finding petitioner liable for illegal possession of a firearm.

The Facts

On July 10, 1996, at around 9:30 a.m., SPO2 Antonio M. Disuanco of the Criminal Investigation
Division, Central Police District Command, received a dispatch order2from the desk officer.3 The
order directed him and three (3) other policemen to serve a warrant of arrest4 issued by Judge
Ignacio Salvador against petitioner Sr. Insp. Jerry C. Valeroso in a case for kidnapping with
ransom.5

After a briefing, the team conducted the necessary surveillance on petitioner, checking his
hideouts in Cavite, Caloocan, and Bulacan.6 Eventually, the team proceeded to the Integrated
National Police (INP) Central Station at Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw petitioner as he was
about to board a tricycle.7 SPO2 Disuanco and his team approached petitioner.8 They put him
under arrest, informed him of his constitutional rights, and bodily searched him.9 Found tucked
in his waist10 was a Charter Arms, bearing Serial Number 5231511 with five (5) live
ammunition.12

Petitioner was then brought to the police station for questioning.13

A verification of the subject firearm at the Firearms and Explosives Division at Camp Crame
revealed that it was not issued to petitioner but to a certain Raul Palencia Salvatierra of
Sampaloc, Manila.14 Epifanio Deriquito, the records verifier, presented a certification15 to that
effect signed by Edwin C. Roque, chief records officer of the Firearms and Explosive Division.16

Petitioner was then charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1866,17 as amended. The Information read:

That on or about the 10th day of July, 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused without
any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her
possession and under his/her custody and control
One (1) cal. 38 "Charter Arms" revolver bearing Serial No. 52315 with five (5) live ammo.
without first having secured the necessary license/permit issued by the proper authorities.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Quezon City, Philippines, July 15, 1996.

(Sgd.)

GLORIA VICTORIA C. YAP

Assistant City Prosecutor18

With the assistance of his counsel de parte, Atty. Oscar Pagulayan, petitioner pleaded not guilty
when arraigned on October 9, 1996.19 Trial on the merits ensued.

SPO2 Disuanco and Deriquito testified for the prosecution in the manner stated above.

Upon the other hand, the defense version was supplied by the combined testimonies of
petitioner Sr. Insp. Jerry C. Valeroso, SPO3 Agustin R. Timbol, Jr. and Adrian Yuson.

Petitioner recounted that on July 10, 1996, he was fast asleep in the boarding house of his
children located at Sagana Homes, Barangay New Era, Quezon City.20 He was roused from his
slumber when four (4) heavily armed men in civilian clothes bolted the room.21 They trained
their guns at him22 and pulled him out of the room. They then tied his hands and placed him
near the faucet.23 The raiding team went back inside and searched and ransacked the
room.24 SPO2 Disuanco stood guard outside with him.25 Moments later, an operative came out of
the room and exclaimed, "Hoy, may nakuha akong baril sa loob!"26

Petitioner was told by SPO2 Disuanco that "we are authorized to shoot you because there's a
shoot to kill order against you, so if you are planning do so something, do it right now."27 He was
also told that there was a standing warrant for his arrest.28 However, he was not shown any
proof when he asked for it.29Neither was the raiding group armed with a valid search warrant.30

According to petitioner, the search done in the boarding house was illegal. The gun seized from
him was duly licensed and covered by necessary permits. He was, however, unable to present
the documentation relative to the firearm because it was confiscated by the police. Petitioner
further lamented that when he was incarcerated, he was not allowed to engage the services of a
counsel. Neither was he allowed to see or talk to his family.31

Petitioner contended that the police had an axe to grind against him. While still with the
Narcotics Command, he turned down a request of Col. Romulo Sales to white-wash a drug-
related investigation involving friends of the said police officer. Col. Sales was likewise subject of
a complaint filed with the Ombudsman by his wife. Col. Sales was later on appointed as the head
of the unit that conducted the search in his boarding house.32

SPO3 Timbol, Jr. of the Narcotics Command testified that he issued to petitioner a Memorandum
Receipt dated July 1, 199333 covering the subject firearm and its ammunition. This was upon the
verbal instruction of Col. Angelito Moreno. SPO3 Timbol identified his signature34on the said
receipt.35

Adrian Yuson, an occupant of the room adjacent to where petitioner was arrested, testified that
on July 10, 1996, two (2) policemen suddenly entered his room as he was preparing for
school.36 They grabbed his shoulder and led him out.37 During all those times, a gun was poked
at him.38 He was asked where petitioner was staying. Fearing for his life, he pointed to
petitioner's room.39

Four (4) policemen then entered the room.40 He witnessed how they pointed a gun at petitioner,
who was clad only in his underwear.41 He also witnessed how they forcibly brought petitioner out
of his room.42 While a policeman remained near the faucet to guard petitioner, three (3) others
went back inside the room.43They began searching the whole place. They forcibly opened his
locker,44 which yielded the subject firearm.45

RTC and CA Dispositions

On May 6, 1998, the trial court found petitioner guilty as charged, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of
Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act No. 8294 and hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or from 4
years, 2 months and 1 day as minimum to 6 years as maximum and to pay the fine in the
amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00).

The gun subject of this case is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government. Let the
same be put in trust in the hands of the Chief of the PNP.

SO ORDERED.46

Petitioner moved to reconsider47 but his motion was denied on August 27, 1998.48 He appealed
to the CA.

On May 4, 2004, the appellate court affirmed with modification the RTC disposition. The fallo of
the CA decision reads:

Verily, the penalty imposed by the trial court upon the accused-appellant is modified to 4 years
and 2 months as minimum up to 6 years as maximum.

WHEREFORE, with the foregoing MODIFICATION as to the penalty, the decision appealed
from is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.49

His motion for reconsideration50 having been denied through a Resolution dated August 3,
2004,51 petitioner resorted to the present petition under Rule 45.

Issues

Petitioner raises the following issues for Our consideration:

I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW IN AFFIRMING

THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.

II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF FACT AND LAW IN
SUSTAINING THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH AND THE VALIDITY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF THE
EVIDENCE OBTAINED THEREFROM DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING PROOF THAT THE SAME IS
THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE.
III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW IN NOT
UPHOLDING THE REGULARITY AND VALIDITY SURROUNDING THE ISSUANCE OF THE
MEMORANDUM RECEIPTS (SIC) IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER WHICH PROVES HIS INNOCENCE OF
THE CRIME CHARGE (SIC).52(Underscoring supplied)cralawlibrary

Our Ruling

In illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, the prosecution has the burden of proving the
twin elements of (1) the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition, and (2) the fact that
the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it.53

The prosecution was able to discharge its burden.

The existence of the subject firearm and its ammunition was established through the testimony
of SPO2 Disuanco.54 Defense witness Yuson also identified the firearm.55 Its existence was
likewise admitted by no less than petitioner himself.56

As for petitioner's lack of authority to possess the firearm, Deriquito testified that a verification
of the Charter Arms Caliber .38 bearing Serial No. 52315 with the Firearms and Explosives
Division at Camp Crame revealed that the seized pistol was not issued to petitioner. It was
registered in the name of a certain Raul Palencia Salvatierra of Sampaloc, Manila.57 As proof,
Deriquito presented a certification signed by Roque, the chief records officer of the same office.58

The Court on several occasions ruled that either the testimony of a representative of, or a
certification from, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosive Office attesting
that a person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the second element of possession of illegal firearms.59 The prosecution more than complied when
it presented both.

The certification is outside the scope of the hearsay rule.

The general rule is that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception.60Otherwise, the testimony is
objectionable for being hearsay.61

On this score, the certification from the Firearms and Explosives Division is an exception to the
hearsay rule by virtue of Rule 130, Section 44 of the Rules of Court which provides:

Sec. 44. Entries in official records. - Entries in official records made in the performance of his
official duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty
specifically enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

It may be true that the contents of said certification are only prima facie evidence of the facts
stated there. However, the failure of petitioner to present controverting evidence makes the
presumption unrebutted. Thus, the presumption stands.

Petitioner, however, raises several points which he says entitles him to no less than an acquittal.

The assessment of credibility of witnesses lies with the trial court.

First, petitioner says that the seizure of the subject firearm was invalid. The search was
conducted after his arrest and after he was taken out of the room he was occupying.62
This contention deserves scant consideration.

Petitioner's version of the manner and place of his arrest goes into the factual findings made by
the trial court and its calibration of the credibility of witnesses. However, as aptly put by Justice
Ynares-Santiago in People v. Rivera:63

x x x the manner of assigning values to declarations of witnesses on the witness stand is best
and most competently performed by the trial judge who had the unmatched opportunity to
observe the witnesses and assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not
reflected on record. The demeanor of the person on the stand can draw the line between fact
and fancy or evince if the witness is telling the truth or lying through his teeth. We have
consistently ruled that when the question arises as to which of the conflicting versions of the
prosecution and the defense is worthy of belief, the assessment of the trial courts are generally
viewed as correct and entitled to great weight. Furthermore, in an appeal, where the culpability
or innocence of the accused depends on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of
their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect if not
finality.64 (Underscoring supplied)cralawlibrary

The trial court found the prosecution version worthy of credence and belief. We find no
compelling reason not to accept its observation on this score.

Worth noting is the fact that petitioner is a ranking police officer who not only claims to be highly
decorated,65 but have effected a number of successful arrests66 as well. Common sense would
dictate that he must necessarily be authorized to carry a gun. We thus agree with the Office of
the Solicitor General that framing up petitioner would have been a very risky proposition. Had
the arresting officers really intended to cause the damnation of petitioner by framing him up,
they could have easily "planted" a more incriminating evidence rather than a gun. That would
have made their nefarious scheme easier, assuming that there indeed was one.

The pieces of evidence show that petitioner is not legally authorized to possess the
subject firearm and its five (5) ammunition.

Second, petitioner insists that he is legally authorized to possess the subject firearm and its
ammunition on the basis of the Memorandum Receipt issued to him by the PNP Narcotics
Command.67

Although petitioner is correct in his submission that public officers like policemen are accorded
presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties,68it is only a presumption; it
may be overthrown by evidence to the contrary. The prosecution was able to rebut the
presumption when it proved that the issuance to petitioner of the Memorandum Receipt was
anything but regular.

SPO3 Timbol, Jr. testified that he issued the Memorandum Receipt to petitioner based on the
verbal instruction of his immediate superior, Col. Moreno.69However, a reading of Timbol's
testimony on cross-examination70 would reveal that there was an unusual facility by which said
receipt was issued to petitioner. Its issuance utterly lacked the usual necessary bureaucratic
constraints. Clearly, it was issued to petitioner under questionable circumstances.

Failure to offer an unlicensed firearm as evidence is not fatal provided there is

competent testimony as to its existence.
Third, petitioner claims that the subject firearm and ammunition should have been excluded as
evidence because they were not formally offered by the prosecution71 in violation of Section 34,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.72

We note that petitioner contradicted himself when he argued for the validity of the Memorandum
Receipt and, at the same time, for the exclusion in evidence of the subject firearm and its
ammunition. Petitioner's act may result to an absurd situation where the Memorandum Receipt
is declared valid, while the subject firearm and its ammunition which are supposedly covered by
the Memorandum Receipt are excluded as evidence. That would have made the Memorandum
Receipt useless.

In any case, petitioner's contention has no leg to stand on.

Contrary to petitioner's claim, the subject firearm73 and its five (5) live ammunition74 were
offered in evidence by the prosecution.75 Even assuming arguendo that they were not offered,
petitioner's stance must still fail. The existence of an unlicensed firearm may be established by
testimony, even without its presentation at trial. In People v. Orehuela,76 the non-presentation
of the pistol did not prevent the conviction of the accused.

The doctrine was affirmed in the recent case of People v. Malinao.77

As previously stated, the existence of the subject firearm and its five (5) live ammunition were
established through the testimony of SPO2 Disuanco.78 Yuson also identified said
firearm.79 Petitioner even admitted its existence.80

We hasten to add that there may also be conviction where an unlicensed firearm is presented
during trial but through inadvertence, negligence, or fortuitous event (for example, if it is lost),
it is not offered in evidence, as long as there is competent testimony as to its existence.

Penal and civil liabilities

Petitioner was charged with the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under the
first paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended. It provides that "[t]he penalty
of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any firearm, part
of firearm, ammunition or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the
manufacture of any firearm or ammunition."

P.D. No. 1866, as amended, was the governing law at the time petitioner committed the offense
on July 10, 1996. However, R.A. No. 8294 amended P.D. No. 1866 on July 6, 1997,81 during the
pendency of the case with the trial court. The present law now states:

SECTION 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 prision correccional 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. (Underscoring supplied)cralawlibrary

As a general rule, penal laws should not have retroactive application, lest they acquire the
character of an ex post facto law.82 An exception to this rule, however, is when the law is
advantageous to the accused. According to Mr. Chief Justice Araullo, this is "not as a right" of
the offender, "but founded on the very principles on which the right of the State to punish and
the commination of the penalty are based, and regards it not as an exception based on political
considerations, but as a rule founded on principles of strict justice."83

Although an additional fine of P15,000.00 is imposed by R.A. No. 8294, the same is still
advantageous to the accused, considering that the imprisonment is lowered to prision
correccional in its maximum period84 from reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
perpetua85 under P.D. No. 1866.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, prision correccional maximum which ranges from four
(4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, is the prescribed penalty and will
form the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence. The minimum term shall be one degree
lower, which is prision correccional in its medium period (two [2] years, four [4] months and one
[1] day to four [4] years and two [2] months).86 Hence, the penalty imposed by the CA is
correct. The penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as
minimum term, to six (6) years of prision correccional maximum, as maximum term, is in
consonance with the Court's ruling in Gonzales v. Court of Appeals87 and Barredo v. Vinarao.88

As to the subject firearm and its five (5) live ammunition, their proper disposition should be
made under Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code89 which provides, among others, that the
proceeds and instruments or tools of the crime shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
government.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 4, 2004 is AFFIRMED in full.

SO ORDERED.