Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus - CA-GR CRIM. NO. ____________

JERBERT LABARTE y SANTOS

Alyas “Gilbert”,
Accused-Appellant.
x------------------------------------------x

ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S BRIEF

ACCUSED-APPELLANT, by and through the undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Court of Appeals, most respectfully
submits this Appellant’s Brief and avers, That:

THE CASE

This is an appeal from the Decision dated 05 February 2015

rendered by Branch 42 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, the
dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, accused JERBERT LABARTE Y

SANTOS is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Section 28 (a) (e1), Republic Act
10591 (Comprehensive Law on Firearms and
Ammunitions). The said accused is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS AND ONE (1)
DAY of prision mayor as minimum to TEN (10) YEARS,
EIGHT(8) MONTHS, AND ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor
as maximum.”

Legible certified true copy of the Decision dated 05 February

2015 is hereto attached and marked as Annex “A” and made an
integral part hereof.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1
 Accused-Appellant stands charged for violation of Section 28
(a) (e1) of Republic Act 10591 (Comprehensive Law on Firearms and
Ammunitions) in an Information that reads as follows:

“The undersigned accuses JERBERT LABARTE Y

SANTOS @ “GILBERT” for Violation of Section 28 (a)
(e1), Republic Act 10591 (Comprehensive Law on
Firearms and Ammunitions) committed as follows:

That on or about June 1, 2014, at the City of Manila,

Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession and
under his custody and control one (1) homemade “Smith
and Wesson” caliber .357 without serial number loaded
with three (3) live ammunitions of caliber .9mm, one (1)
empty shell of caliber .9mm and one (1) live ammunition
of caliber .38 without first having secured the necessary
license from the proper authorities.

Contrary to law.”

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant Jerbert Labarte entered a

plea of “NOT GUILTY” to the offense charged in the Information.

After the pre-trial was terminated, trial ensued.

To substantiate its allegations in the Information, the

Prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: PO3 Fundador
Guiruela, PO3 Ryan Gaytano, SPO4 Adonis Sugui and PO3 Dexter
Maniaul.

As narrated in the assailed Decision, the version of the

Prosecution is as follows:

On 01 June 2014 at about 7:10 p.m., PO2 Fundador Guiruela,

along with PO3 Dexter Maniaul, received a call from their station
base Patrol 117 Code 0100 informing them that a case of
indiscriminate firing occurred at Morning Star Street, R-10, Tondo,
Manila. The two (2) police officers immediately proceeded to the
place reported and upon arriving there, someone in the area pointed
to accused, Jerbert Labarte, as the one responsible for the shooting.
The police officers were warned that they should be careful because
accused was armed.
2
 Because of the danger that lurked ahead, they drew their
firearms and approached the accused. They informed him that they
are police officers and ordered him to raise his hands and lie face
down. Accused voluntarily acceded. Seized from accused were a
handgun, four (4) live bullets, and one (1) empty shell. Accused was
immediately handcuffed. Shortly thereafter, back-up from the Anti-
Crime Unit arrived and accused was brought to the hospital for
medical examination and then to the police station for investigation.
The firearm recovered was then brought to the crime laboratory for
examination. The ballistic examination revealed that the subject
firearm was a homemade .357 caliber magnum revolver and that one
(1) of the .9mm cartridge cases was fired from said gun.

During trial, the prosecution submitted a Certification dated 30

July 2014 issued by Police Chief Inspector Roldan Butad Daniel of
the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office, stating that accused Jerbert
Labarte y Santos @ “Gilbert” is not a licensed or registered firearm
holder of any kind of caliber.

On the other hand, for its part, the defense presented accused
himself and Mila Samonte. Accused denied committing the crime and
painted a different picture of the event.

Accused testified that on 01 June 2014, he attended a

baptismal celebration at the house of his kumare. To rejoice the
child’s christening, accused with his kumpare and two (2) others who
attended the baptism had a drinking spree. Later, at around 6:30
p.m., when accused was about to go home, he spotted a certain
Mong outside the house of his kumara. He pointed (pinagduduro) at
the accused and uttered unsavory remarks against the latter.
Accused saw Melchor Samonte a.k.a. “Mong” approaching him and
moving as if reaching for something in his waist. Instinctively, to
protect himself, accused grabbed the arm of Melchor and he
confirmed that the latter was reaching for a gun. He and Melchor
wrestled for possession of the gun. While they were grappling for the
gun, with Melchor’s finger on the trigger, the gun went off. Melchor
was hit. Accused fled and went to his office at Road 10 in Tondo. But
before he could reach his office, the policemen arrived. Accused
dashed away when he heard shots being fired by the policemen. The
policemen gave chase and caught him. He was thereupon placed
under arrest. The gun was not taken from his possession nor had he
any idea where the police got the firearm.

On 01 October 2014, a certain Mila Samonte, alleged mother of

deceased Melchor Samonte, testified that the gun used by the
3
accused in slaying Melchor Samonte was owned by the latter.
She had seen the gun once while Melchor was cleaning it. She
identified the subject firearm in open court as the same gun used in
killing her son.

After the completion of the testimonies of defense’s witnesses,

the case was deemed submitted for decision.

On 05 February 2015, the trial court rendered the assailed

Decision finding accused-appellant Jerbert Labarte y Santos guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime as charged.

A motion for reconsideration with entry of appearance was

timely filed by accused-appellant, through his new counsel Atty. Mario
Ryan E. Lauzon.

In an Order dated 21 April 2015, the trial court denied accused-

appellant’s motion for reconsideration.

Legible certified true copy of the Order dated 21 April 2015 is

hereto attached as Annex “B” and made an integral part hereof.

On 20 May 2015, accused-appellant, through counsel, timely

filed a Notice of Appeal with Motion to Post Bond. The appeal was
given due course by the trial court.

Recently, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution directing

accused-appellant to file his Appellant’s Brief, hence, this submission.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I. THE TRIAL COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED IN

DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESS MILA
SAMONTE WHO CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT
HER DECEASED SON MELCHOR SAMONTE WAS
THE OWNER OF THE GUN DESPITE THE
SUBMISSION OF THE CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY
THE BARANGAY STATING THAT WITNESS MILA
SAMONTE WAS THE GUARDIAN OF MELCHOR
SAMONTE SINCE BIRTH THUS PROVING HER
FILIATION OR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LATTER.

4
 II. THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF ACCUSED-
APPELLANT NARRATING THE FACTUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE SHOOTING
INCIDENT THAT TRANSPIRED IN RELATION TO THE
GUN SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CASE PROVING
THAT THE ELEMENT OF INTENT TO POSSESS THE
SAME IS LACKING IN THIS CASE.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

I.

In the assailed Decision, the trial court ruled that the

Prosecution has sufficiently established that accused-appellant was
in possession of the gun when the same was allegedly recovered
from him by PO3 Guiruela. The illegality of his possession thereof
was allegedly likewise established by a certification issued by the
PNP and Firearms and Explosives Office stating that accused-
appellant is neither a licensed nor registered firearm holder of any
kind and caliber.

Corollarily, the trial court found that accused-appellant’s attempt

to prove that the subject gun belongs to the deceased Melchor to be
feeble. The trial court noted that accused-appellant presented a
certain Mila Samonte who claimed to be the mother of deceased
victim Melchor Samonte who testified that the firearm belongs to
Melchor Samonte. However, upon demand by the prosecution,
witness Mila Samonte failed to adduce evidence of her filiation
with Melchor. The trial court allowed her ample time to submit
evidence that will establish her alleged relationship with the victim
Melchor but failed to do so.

In view of the above, accused-appellant, in filing his motion for

reconsideration, submitted to the trial court a copy of the Certification
issued by the Barangay Chairman of Barangay 107-Zone 9, District 1,
categorically certifying that witness Mila Samonte was the
guardian of deceased Melchor Samonte since birth. This piece of
evidence was submitted by the defense in view of the finding of the
trial court a quo that Mila Samonte has allegedly failed to adduce
evidence proving her filiation or relationship with the deceased victim
Melchor Samonte despite ample time given to her to do so.

Unfortunately, in resolving the motion for reconsideration, the

trial court a quo did not consider this piece of evidence and
5
apparently disregarded the same. Instead of appreciating this piece
of evidence, the trial court a quo simply ruled that there is no reason
to deviate from its earlier findings and from giving credence to the
testimonies of the prosecution’s witness as no ill-motive on the part of
the arresting officers was proven by the accused-appellant.

With utmost due respect, it is a grievous error on the part of the

trial court a quo to disregard the importance of the piece of evidence
presented by the accused-appellant in his motion for reconsideration.
The piece of evidence presented is undeniably relevant and
material to the defense of accused-appellant. The certification
presented duly proved the filiation or relationship of witness Mila
Samonte to the deceased victim Melchor Samonte.

Moreover, it should be noted that witness Mila Samonte had

already participated in the instant case even prior to her taking the
witness stand. As early as 02 June 2014, witness Mila Samonte had
already executed a Salaysay ng Pag-Rereklamo (Annex “2” of the
motion for reconsideration) which facilitated the filing of the cases
against accused-appellant arising from the reported shooting incident.

Therefore, there is no reason for the trial court a quo not to give
credence to the testimony of witness Mila Samonte who admitted
during trial that the gun subject matter of the case actually
belongs to the deceased victim Melchor Samonte as she have
seen it before considering her relationship with the latter. In stating
the same, it is apparent that witness Mila Samonte was only testifying
within her personal knowledge regarding the actual owner of the
origin of the gun subject matter of the case.

The time-honored test in determining the value of the testimony

of a witness is its compatibility with human knowledge, observation
and common experience of man.1 Thus, whatever is repugnant to the
standards of human knowledge, observation and experience
becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial cognizance.
Consistently, the Supreme Court has ruled that evidence to be
believed must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness
but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with
the knowledge and common experience of mankind. 2

In this case, the testimony of witness Mila Samonte,

considering her filiation or relationship with the deceased victim
1
Ocampo v. People, G.R. No. 163705, 30 July 2007, 528 SCRA 547, 560.
2
Zapatos v. People, 457 Phil. 969, 985 (2003).

6
Melchor Samonte as proven by the piece of evidence presented as
attached in accused-appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration, fully
deserves credence considering that it would be absurd for her to
admit Melchor’s ownership over the gun subject matter of this case
as it would necessary affects the separate criminal cases she filed
against accused-appellant arising from the shooting incident that led
to the death of Melchor Samonte. The testimony of witness Mila
Samonte, the guardian of deceased victim Melchor Samonte,
regarding the ownership by the latter over the gun subject matter of
this case, in relation to the testimony of accused-appellant as to how
he came into possession of the same (assuming but without admitting
that it was actually recovered by the responding police officers from
him) arising from the reported shooting incident, only proved that
accused-appellant is not guilty of the crime as charged.

Notably, in the assailed Decision, the trial court a quo, based on

the testimony of prosecution’s witness, stated that the police officers
who responded at the scene received call about a case of
“indiscriminate firing”, and upon arriving at the scene, someone in
the area pointed on the accused-appellant as the one responsible for
the shooting.

However, this testimony is evidently contrary on the pieces of

evidence on record (Joint Affidavit of Arrest and Booking Sheet and
Arrest Report) which clearly showed that what had been reported was
a “shooting incident” and not a case of “indiscriminate firing”. The fact
that what actually occurred is a “shooting incident” and not a mere
“indiscriminate firing” completely changes the picture of the case
as it would bolster the testimonies of accused-appellant and witness
Mila Samonte as to the actual owner or origin of the gun subject
matter of this case. Unlike in a case of “indiscriminate firing” where
only one person is involved, the person who indiscriminately fired the
gun in his possession, therefore, is presumed to own said firearm.

With this in mind, accused-appellant cannot second-guess the

intention and motive of prosecution’s witness, the police officers
who responded at the scene of the crime, in changing their stories
about the reports they actually received at the time of the incident,
from a “shooting incident” to a mere “indiscriminate firing” which is
clear contrary to the evidence on record.

Hence, if only the trial court a quo duly considered the

certification presented as proof of filiation or relationship of witness
Mila Samonte with the deceased victim Melchor Samonte, there is no
doubt that accused-appellant deserves an acquittal on the ground
of reasonable doubt.
7
 Corollary, it is oft-repeated that a finding of guilt must rest on
the evidence of the prosecution not on the weakness or even
absence of evidence for the defense. Thus, it is required that every
circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused must be
duly taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test
of reason and the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway
judgment.3 In the case at bench, it is clear that the evidence for the
prosecution was unable to pass the exacting test of moral
certainty that the law demands.

In People v. Fernandez,4 the Honorable Supreme Court has

aptly said:

“It is better to liberate a guilty man than to unjustly

keep in prison one whose guilt has not been proved by
the required quantum of evidence. Hence, despite the
Court's support of ardent crusaders waging all-out war
against felons on the loose, when the People's evidence
fails to prove indubitably the accused's authorship of the
crime of which they stand accused, it is the Court's duty --
and the accused's right -- to proclaim their innocence.
Acquittal, therefore, is in order.”

II.

In illegal possession of firearms, the elements constituting the

corpus delicti of the crime are (a) the existence of the firearm and (b)
that it has been actually held with animus possidendi.5

In the case at bar, based on the testimonies of prosecution’s

witnesses, there is a firearm, the gun subject matter of the case,
loaded with live ammunitions that were allegedly recovered from
accused-appellant upon his arrest (assuming but without admitting
the same) arising from the reported shooting incident (not
indiscriminate firing) The remaining question that is now posed is
whether under the obtaining circumstances, said firearm and
ammunitions were actually held with “animus possidendi” by

3
People v. Mejia, 341 Phil. 118, 145 (2002).
4
434 Phil. 435, 455 (2002).
5
II Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, 6th Rev. Edition/1989/p.567, citing
People v. Camayor, CA-G.R. No. 6142.-R, April 19, 1957.
8
accused-appellant, that is holding or having control with intent to
use it without the requisite authority.

"Animus Possidendi" or intent to possess is a necessary

element in the crime of illegal possession of firearms.6 And "the
crime of illegal possession of firearms is committed by the holding or
having control of firearms or ammunition with intent to use the
same without requisite authority".7

Also, relying on the case of People v. Asuncion, 161 SCRA 490-

499, the Honorable Supreme Court aptly said: "In People v. Lopez, 79
Phil. 658, the Court already ruled that, under Republic Act No. 4, the
use or the carrying of firearms and/or ammunition was an ingredient,
if not the sole ingredient of the "offense; i.e., the very act which were
punished, subject to certain conditions, and hence should be
alleged and proved."

Shifting to another point, "temporary, incidental, casual or

harmless possession or control of a firearm is not a violation of
the statute prohibiting the possession or carrying of this kind of
weapon".8

In their Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated 02 June 2014, the

prosecution’s witnesses alleged:

“That we, together with Anti-Crime Unit of MPD PS-

1 immediately responded at said incident and upon arrival
at said alluded place a concerned citizen pointed the
suspect who was then standing along Morning Star,
Tondo, Manila handed with firearm revolver and I (PO3
Fundador Guiruella aside from wearing our police uniform
introduced ourselves as police officer and I (PO3
Fundador Guiruella) apprehended the suspect and
recovered from his possession and control one (1)
homemade Smith & Wesson caliber .357 pre-marked as
“JLS” without serial number..”

From said Joint-Affidavit of Arrest, it would appear that the

accused-appellant had the intent to possess or “animus possedendi”
over the subject gun.
6
People v. Mojica, 57 O.G. No. 38, p. 6810.
7
People v. Pajenado, 31 SCRA 819; People v. Cava, L-9416, Aug. 31, 1956.
8
People v. Estoista, L-5793, Aug. 27, 1953.
9
 However, a judicious examination of the factual circumstances
of this case as to how the accused-appellant came into possession of
the firearm that were allegedly recovered from him (assuming but
without admitting the same) would proved otherwise. This is where
the testimonies of the accused-appellant and witness Mila Samonte,
in relation to the fact that what occurred was a “shooting incident” and
not a mere “indiscriminate firing”, becomes material to the defense of
accused-appellant. Of course, it is but only natural that a gun was
present during the shooting incident as reported on 01 June 2014
since the deceased victim, Melchor Samonte, died from a gunshot
incident. But assuming only for the sake of argument that the subject
gun was recovered from accused-appellant, still, there is no showing
that accused-appellant had the intent to possess and use the same
since he merely wrested it away from the deceased victim Melchor
Samonte, the actual owner and from whom it came as testified to no
less than by his guardian, witness Mila Samonte.

As can be gleaned from the facts and evidence obtaining in this

case, the prosecution clearly failed to prove that the firearm (gun),
subject matter of this case, was used or with intent to use in the
commission of an offense, or carrying the same in his person.

Hence, it is but clear that the element of “animus possedendi”

as required by law constituting the corpus delicti of the crime as
charged is simply lacking in this case, consequently, accused-
appellant should be acquitted.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court of Appeals that the Decision dated 05
February 2015 rendered by Branch 42 of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila in this case be NULLIFIED and VACATED, in lieu thereof, a
new Decision be issued ordering the ACQUITTAL of accused-
appellant JERBERT LABARTE y SANTOS for alleged Violation of
Section 28 (a) (e1), Republic Act 10591 (Comprehensive Law on
Firearms and Ammunitions) on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Other just and equitable reliefs under the premises are similarly
prayed for.

Quezon City for Manila, 17 September 2015.

10
 ATTY. MARIO RYAN E. LAUZON
Counsel for Accused-Appellant
No. 12 Scout Rallos Street
Brgy. Laging Handa, Quezon City
marioryanlauzon@gmail.com
Tel. Nos. 411-2065 / 410-9777
Roll of Attorney No. 59730
IBP No. 0991801 / 01-14-15 / Q.C.
PTR NO. 94100360 / 01-07-15 / Q.C.
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0019798 / 08-08-13

Copy Furnished:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL – By reg. mail w/rc

No. 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
Makati City

EXPLANATION

Due to distance, time constraint and lack of messengerial

personnel, two (2) copies of Accused-Appellant’s Brief is served to
the Office of the Solicitor General by registered mail in lieu of
personal service.

ATTY. MARIO RYAN E. LAUZON

11