FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 237793. June 25, 2018.]

RODEL MANIEGO y SOLON , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES , respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June
25, 2018 which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 237793 — Rodel Maniego y Solon v. People of the Philippines

The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time of thirty
(30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on March 29, 2018 within
which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari.
After a judicious review of petitioner's allegations and in accordance with Rule 45
and other related provisions of the Rules of Court, the Court further resolves to DENY
the present Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show any
reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in rendering the assailed
Decision 1 and Resolution dated October 19, 2017 and February 26, 2018, respectively,
in CA G.R. CR No. 39286.
Petitioner alleges that the CA gravely erred in a rming his conviction for
violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 10591 given that not all the elements of unlawful
possession of rearms and ammunition were duly proven. While petitioner admits that
what he is raising are factual issues that this Court cannot usually entertain in a Rule 45
petition, he nonetheless argues that, in this particular case, a re-examination of the
factual ndings of the trial court as a rmed by the CA is justi ed as they do not
conform to the evidence on record. According to petitioner, the corpus delicti of the
offense charged was the holder's lack of license or permit to possess or carry the
rearm and that the negative certi cation from the Philippine National Police-Firearms
and Explosives O ce (PNP-FEO) was submitted only on January 6, 2016 or six (6)
months after the Information was filed.
The Court is unpersuaded.
Parties who beseech the Court to take a second look at the facts of their case
must demonstrate that theirs is a case which clearly falls under at least one of the
exceptions 2 to the rule. In other words, it is the parties who bear the burden of proving
to this Court that a review of the factual ndings of the lower courts is necessary. A
bare assertion that their case is exceptional does not su ce. The applicable
exception/s to the general rule that this Court is not a trier of facts must be alleged,
substantiated, and proved by the parties. Absent any convincing proof to rule
otherwise, this Court defers to the appreciation and evaluation of the evidence by the
lower courts.
Besides, the CA had already passed upon the factual issue in this petition and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Court nds no cogent reason to disturb its pronouncements. On the main, the present
petition insists that the elements of unlawful possession of rearms and ammunition
were not duly proven; it hinges its claim on the fact that the negative certi cation from
the PNP-FEO was belatedly issued contrary to the post-seizure procedure laid down in
DOJ Circular No. 067. However, as correctly pointed out by the CA, this Court has
repeatedly held 3 that the testimony of a representative of, or a certi cation from, the
PNP-FEO attesting that a person is not a licensee of any rearm would su ce to prove
the second element of illegal possession of rearm. Moreover, as aptly argued by the
O ce of the Solicitor General before the CA, DOJ Circular No. 067 was meant to set
guidelines for the e cient disposition of cases involving RA No. 10591. The
submission of the negative certi cation is not a condition sine qua non to successfully
prosecute an accused for unlawful possession of firearm. 4 aScITE

ACCORDINGLY , the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed Decision and

Resolution dated October 19, 2017 and February 26, 2018, respectively, in CA G.R. CR
No. 39286.
SO ORDERED . " Leonardo-de Castro, J. , on o cial leave; Del Castillo, J. ,
designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2562
dated June 20, 2018; Gesmundo, J. , designated as Acting Member per Special Order
No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Acting Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and concurred in by Associate

Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Socorro B. Inting.

2. (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the
judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7)
the findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record;
(8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the
Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of
Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the
admissions of both parties (Carbonell vs. Carbonell-Mendes, 762 Phil. 529, 537 [2015]).
3. People v. Luisito Go y Ko, 406 Phil. 804 (2001); People v. Lazaro y Servania, 375 Phil. 871
(1999); Del Rosario y Nicolas v. People, 410 Phil. 642 (2001).

4. Rollo, pp. 48-49.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com