Facts:

On June 27, 1990, Leo Lian y Verano was apprehended by Sgt. Orlandino Lales, the police station commander of Pugo, La Union, for illegal possession of a firearm. Prior to the arrest, a barangay tanod, Abelardo Macaraeg, reported to Sgt. Lales that he had seen Lian with a handgun tucked in his waist at the public market. After initially failing to locate Lian, Sgt. Lales returned to the market upon receiving further information from Macaraeg that Lian had returned.

Upon finding Lian, Sgt. Lales observed a bulge at Lian's waist and inquired about it. Lian responded with an angry look and reached for his waist, revealing the handgun. Sgt. Lales seized the firearm, which was a caliber .45 pistol with a live bullet in its chamber. Lian was unable to produce any license or permit for the firearm, leading to his arrest.

During the trial, Lian admitted to possessing the firearm but claimed he intended to surrender it to the authorities. He stated that he had found the gun in a bag on a bus earlier that day and had tucked it in his waist while intending to go to the municipal hall to surrender it. However, he got distracted by friends at the market and forgot about the gun while drinking with them.

The prosecution presented witnesses, including Sgt. Lales and Macaraeg, who testified about the circumstances of Lian's apprehension and the seizure of the firearm. The trial court found Lian guilty of illegal possession of a firearm under Presidential Decree No. 1866 and sentenced him to reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the prosecution established the element of animus possidendi (intent to possess) on the part of Lian.
  2. Whether Lian's possession of the firearm was merely temporary or incidental, thus exempting him from liability under the law.
  3. The appropriateness of the penalty imposed by the trial court.

Arguments:

  • Prosecution's Argument: The prosecution argued that Lian was in actual possession of the firearm without the necessary license or permit, which constituted a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866. They contended that Lian's claim of intending to surrender the firearm was not credible, as he had the opportunity to do so immediately but chose to engage in drinking instead.

  • Defense's Argument: Lian's defense maintained that he did not possess the firearm with intent to keep it, asserting that his possession was merely temporary and incidental. He argued that he had intended to surrender the firearm to the authorities and that the police officer's seizure of the gun occurred before he could do so.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court upheld the trial court's conviction, finding that the prosecution had sufficiently established both the actual possession of the firearm and the animus possidendi. The court noted that Lian's admission of possession, coupled with the testimony of the police officer and barangay tanod, demonstrated that he had control over the firearm without the requisite authority or license.

The court found Lian's defense to be implausible, emphasizing that if he truly intended to surrender the firearm, he should have done so immediately rather than engaging in drinking with friends. The court also highlighted that the weight and danger of carrying a loaded firearm should have been a constant reminder for Lian to surrender it.

Regarding the penalty, the court recognized that the trial court had imposed an indeterminate sentence that was legally indefensible due to the lack of specification of the minimum and maximum periods. The court clarified that the appropriate penalty for simple illegal possession of a firearm under Presidential Decree No. 1866 should be an indeterminate sentence of ten years and one day of prision mayor as the minimum, to eighteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as the maximum.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. Animus Possidendi: The court reiterated that animus possidendi is a crucial element in illegal possession cases, which refers to the intent to possess the firearm. The presence of this intent can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the possession.

  2. Credibility of Testimony: The court emphasized the importance of credible testimony and the need for a defendant's claims to conform to human experience and logic.

  3. Indeterminate Sentencing: The court clarified the rules regarding indeterminate sentencing, particularly in cases involving complex penalties, and established the correct application of penalties under Presidential Decree No. 1866.