These findings also debunk the allegation in the information that petitioner conspired with Valerio in

committing illegal possession of part of a firearm. There is no evidence indubitably proving that petitioner
participated in the decision to commit the criminal act committed by Valerio.

Hence, this Court is constrained to acquit petitioner on the ground of reasonable doubt. The constitutional
presumption of innocence in her favor was not adequately overcome by the evidence adduced by the
prosecution.

The CA correctly convicted Valerio with illegal possession of part of a firearm.

In illegal possession of a firearm, two (2) things must be shown to exist: (a) the existence of the subject
firearm; and (b) the fact that the accused who possessed the same does not have the corresponding
[26]
license for it.

By analogy then, a successful conviction for illegal possession of part of a firearm must yield these
requisites: (a) the existence of the part of the firearm; and

(b) the accused who possessed the same does not have the license for the firearm to which the seized
part/component corresponds.

In the instant case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the

elements of the crime. The subject receivers - one with the mark