JERRY VALEROSO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESSeptember 3, 2009G.R. No.

164815STATEMENT OF
THE CASE:

A petition for review on certiorari involving the decision of the Hon. Court of Appeals which affirmed
that of the RTC of Quezon City in finding the petitioner-accused Jerry Valerosoliable of illegal possession
of firearm.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Petitioner was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition underP.D. 1866 and was
found liable as charged before the RTC of Quezon City.On July 10, 1996, the Central District Command
served a duly issued warrant of arrest to Sr.Insp. Jerry Valeroso in a case of kidnapping for ransom.
Valeroso was found and arrested in INP CentralStation in Culiat, Quezon City where he was about to
board a tricycle. He was bodily searched and afterwhich a firearm with live ammunition was found
tucked in his waist. The subject firearm was laterverified by the Firearms and Explosive Division at Camp
Crame and was confirmed and revealed to havenot been issued to the petitioner but to another
person.The defense on the other hand contended that Valeroso was arrested and searched in
theboarding house of his children in New Era Quezon City. He was aroused from his slumber when
fourheavily armed men in civilian clothes bolted the room. The pointed their guns on him and pulled
him outof the room as the raiding team went back inside, searched and ransacked the room. Moments
later anoperative came out of the room exclaiming that he has found a gun inside. Adrian Yuson, an
occupant tothe adjacent room testified for the defense. SPO3 Timbol, Jr. testified that the firearm with
liveammunition was issued to Jerry Valeroso by virtue of a Memorandum Receipt.The petitioner was
found guilty as charged by the RTC. On appeal, the appellate court affirmedthe same. Hence this
petition. Petitioner raised the issue of legalilty of the search and the admissibility

and validity of the evidence obtained as the same was the “fruit of the poisonous tree”.

ISSUE

: Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and ammunition valid.

RULING

: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the February 22, 2008 Decision and June 30, 2008Resolution are
RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. Sr. Insp. Jerry Valeroso is hereby ACQUITTED of illegalpossession of
firearm and ammunition.

RATIONALE/REASON:

From the foregoing narration of facts, we can readily conclude that the arrestingofficers served the
warrant of arrest without any resistance from Valeroso. They placed himimmediately under their control
by pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him out of the room with hishands tied. To be sure, the
cabinet which, according to Valeroso, was locked, could no longer beconsidered as an "area within his
immediate control" because there was no way for him to take anyweapon or to destroy any evidence
that could be used against him

Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
 
THIRD DIVISION
 
 
SR. INSP. JERRY C. VALEROSO, G.R. No. 164815
Petitioner,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ.
 
THE PEOPLE OF THE Promulgated:
PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. February 22, 2008
x--------------------------------------------------x
 
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) inQuezon 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 order[2] from the desk officer.[3] The order directed him and three (3) other
policemen to serve a warrant of arrest[4] 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 waist[10] was a Charter Arms, bearing Serial Number 52315[11] 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 certification[15] 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 Prosecutor[18]
 
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 him[22] 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
theres 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.[29] Neither 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, 1993[33] covering the subject firearm and its
ammunition. This was upon the verbal instruction of Col. Angelito Moreno. SPO3
Timbol identified his signature[34] on 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 petitioners 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.
[43]
 They 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 reconsider[47] 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 reconsideration[50] 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)
 
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 petitioners 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.[60] Otherwise, 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, areprima
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.
 
Petitioners 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)
 
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
arrests[66] 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,[68] it 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.
[69]
 However, a reading of Timbols testimony on cross-examination[70] 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
prosecution[71] 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.Petitioners 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, petitioners contention has no leg to stand on.
 
Contrary to petitioners claim, the subject firearm[73] and its five (5) live
ammunition[74] were offered in evidence by the prosecution.[75] Even
assuming arguendo that they were not offered, petitioners 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 ofprision 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)
 
 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 period[84] from reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua[85] 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 Courts ruling
in Gonzales v. Court of Appeals[87] 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 Code[89] 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.