PEOPLE V. DELA ROSA intention was merely to surrender them.
January 16, 1998 | Puno, J. | Mala prohibata ISSUE/s:
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: People of the Philippines
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS: Rodolfo dela Rosa y Aviles, Antonio dela Rosa y
Aviles, and Rodolfo Quimson y Nava (At large)
SUMMARY: Rodolfo dela Rosa denies possession of illegal firearms and
explosives because his intention was to surrender it to the police. The SC ruled
in his favor because the prosecution failed to establish animus possidendi or the
intent to possess the firearms. His possession of the firearms was temporarily
and casually or for the purpose of surrendering the same.
DOCTRINE:
Crimes mala prohibata are wrong merely because they are prohibited by statute.
Criminal intent is not necessary. It is sufficient that the intent to perpetrate the
act or the free and conscious performance of the prohibited act is present.
In the case of illegal possession of firearms, it must be shown that there was
animus possidendi or intent to possess on the part of the accussed.
FACTS:
1. An information for illegal possession of firearms and explosives was filed
against accused-appellants and and Cresencio Reyes y Dela Cruz, who had
pleaded guilty to lesser offense and was utilized as a witness by the
prosecution
2. Prosecution alleged that they had surrenderd to Kagawad Rigor and
confessed that they had shot a Benjamin Nano alias Kumander Tamang, a
member of the New People’s Army. They had with them a short shotgun
and a bag containing several sticks of dynamite. Cresencio Reyes informed
the police that there were firearms left buried in their hideout, where 2 long
barreled shotguns were found.
3. The accused contends that they had been recruited by Tamang on different
dates to be a member of the NPA. After joining, Tamang had shown them
the explosives in the bag and informed them that they would assassinate
Kagawad Rigor. Later, they heard a gunshot and found that Reyes had
killed Tamang and ordered them to help burn Tamang’s hut. They then
surrendered to Kagawad Rigor. They asked for counsel but were denied and
promised that they would be freed. After their statements were taken, they
were detained. They denied ever seeing the 2 long firearms Reyes
mentioned.
4. The trial court found them guilty. They reasoned that mere possession
would be sufficient to convict a person for crimes which are malum
prohibitum like possession of firearms.
5. Only Rodolfo dela Rosa appealed. He denied that he was in possession of
said ammunitions in the manner punishable by law and that his real
1. WoN Rodolfo dela Rosa is guilty of illegal possession of firearms and
explosives – NO.
RULING: Rodolfo dela Rosa is acquitted.
RATIO:
1. Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1866 punishes illegal possession of firearms, provided
that the following elements are present:
a. Holder possesses a firearm
b. Holder lacks authority or license to possess it
2. Intent to commit the crime in crimes punishable by a special law is not
necessary. It is sufficient that intent to perpetrate the act is present. Intent
to commit the crime refers to criminal intent and intent to perpetrate
the act refers to whether the prohibited act is done freely and
consciously. While criminal intent or the intention to commit an offense
with the use of the unlicensed firearm is not needed for the crime of illegal
possession, it must be shown that there was animus possidendi or intent
to possess on the part of the accussed. (People v. de Gracia)
3. The temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless possession of firearms is not
punishable (People v. Estoista). Transient possession is not sufficient to
convict one of illegal possession of firearms. (People v. Remereta)
4. The kind of possession punishable under PD 1866 is one where accused
possessed a firearm either physically or constructively with animus
possidendi or intention to possess the same. It is not enough that the
firearm was found in the person of the accused who held the same
temporarily and casually or for the purpose of surrendering the same.
Animus possidendi is a state of mind and can be determined solely from
prior and simultaneous acts and the surrounding circumstances
explaining how the subject firearm came to his possession.
5. Rodolfo dela Rosa’s intention to surrender the ammunitions was very clear
from the beginning and he was able to execute the same. The prosecution
failed to establish the first element of animus possidendi.
6. They also failed to provide evidence of lack of license, aside from the
preliminary examination and dela Rosa’s extrajudicial statement. The
burden of proof on a negative averment is on the party averring the
negative. This is also in consonance with the constitutional presumption of
innocence of the accused where the burden of proof is placed on the
prosecution. Further, the OSG’s contention that dela Rosa could not be a
member of the NPA without arming himself is mere suspicion that will not
prove the prosecution’s case.