Criminal Law Review

TEOFILO EVANGELISTA, Petitioner, GR No. 163267

vs. Date: May 5, 2010
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Ponente:
Respondent.
DOCTRINE: And more than mere possession, the prosecution was able to ascertain that he has
no license or authority to possess said firearms. It bears to stress that the essence of the crime
penalized under PD 1866, as amended, is primarily the accused’s lack of license to possess the
firearm. The fact of lack or absence of license constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of
illegal possession of firearm. Since it has been shown that petitioner was already in the
Philippines when he was found in possession of the subject firearms and determined to be without
any authority to possess them, an essential ingredient of the offense, it is beyond reasonable
doubt that the crime was perpetrated and completed in no other place except the Philippines.
FACTS
There was an information saying that on January 30, 1996 at NAIA the accused feloniously have
in possession of the firearms without the corresponding permit or license from competent
authority. RTC's ruling: Evangelista guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of the illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions. Petitioner filed a motion for new trial which the RTC
granted. RTC then found the petitioner liable still for the offense charged but modified the penalty
of imprisonment. CA's ruling: CA affirmed the findings of the trial court in its decision. It ruled that
the stipulations during the trial are binding on petitioner. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE/S
Whether CA gravely erred in not acquitting Evangelista from the charge of the illegal possession
of firearms
RATIO
Appeal is devoid of merit.
And more than mere possession, the prosecution was able to ascertain that he has no license or
authority to possess said firearms. It bears to stress that the essence of the crime penalized under
PD 1866, as amended, is primarily the accused’s lack of license to possess the firearm. The fact
of lack or absence of license constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal
possession of firearm. Since it has been shown that petitioner was already in the Philippines when
he was found in possession of the subject firearms and determined to be without any authority to
possess them, an essential ingredient of the offense, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the crime
was perpetrated and completed in no other place except the Philippines. ,Contrary to the
arguments put forward by petitioner, we entertain no doubt that the crime of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition for which he was charged was committed in the Philippines. The
accomplishment by petitioner of the Customs Declaration Form upon his arrival at the NAIA is
very clear evidence that he was already in possession of the subject firearms in the Philippines.
In contrast, petitioner failed to establish by sufficient and competent evidence that the present
charge happened in Dubai. It may be well to recall that while in Dubai, petitioner, even in a
situation between life and death, firmly denied possession and ownership of the firearms.
Furthermore, there is no record of any criminal case having been filed against petitioner in Dubai
in connection with the discovered firearms. Since there is no pending criminal case when he left
Dubai, it stands to reason that there was no crime committed in Dubai. The age-old but familiar
rule that he who alleges must prove his allegation applies.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR No. 21805 affirming the January 23, 1998 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City,
Branch 109 dated January 23, 1998, convicting petitioner Teofilo Evangelista of violation of
Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of imprisonment of six years and one day to eight years and to pay a fine of ₱30,000.00 is
AFFIRMED
NIFAS