Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BULACAN

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION
Malolos City
Branch 7

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. 699-M-2015

For: Violation of Sec. 28 (a) in
relation to Sec. 28 (e) of RA
10591

JACOB CORDERO y PERGIS,

Accused.

x---------------------x

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. 700-M-2015

For: Violation of Sec. 28 (a) of RA
10591

JACOB CORDERO y PERGIS,

Accused.

x---------------------x

DECISION

Herein accused stands charged for the violations of

Republic Act No. 10591 in the following Information:

CRIM. CASE NO. 699-M-2015

“INFORMATION

The undersigned 4 th Asst. Provincial Prosecutor

accuses Jacob Cordero y Pergis of Violation of Sec. 28 (a)
in relation to Sec. 28 (e) of R.A. 10591 thereof, committed
as follows:

That on or about the 30 th day of January, 2015, in

the municipality of Plaridel, province of Bulacan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above- named accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession
 Crim. Case No. 3383-M-2011
Decision dated February, 2018

and under his custody and control one (1) Caliber .38
Revolver with serial number loaded with 12 pieces live
ammunitions, without first having obtained a proper
license to possess or a permit to carry the same from the
proper authorities.

Contrary to law. ”

CRIM. CASE NO. 700-M-2015

“INFORMATION

The undersigned 4 th Asst. Provincial Prosecutor

accuses Jacob Cordero y Pergis of Violation of Sec. 28 (a)
of R.A. 10591 thereof, committed as follows:

That on or about the 30 th day of January, 2015, in

the municipality of Plaridel, province of Bulacan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above- named accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession
and under his custody and control two (2) Caliber firearms
without serial number, without first having obtained a
proper license to possess or a permit to carry the same
from the proper authorities.

Contrary to law. ”

Upon arraignment, accused Jacob Cordero pleaded

NOT GUILTY to both charges of Violation of R.A. 10591.

On August 12, 2015, joint pre –trial conference was

held wherein both parties stipulated as the jurisdiction of the
court over the accused arraigned before this court and
jurisdiction of the court over the offense charged. The pre-
trial was then ordered terminated.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution presented three witnesses namely: (1)

IO1 Charito O. Mindanao (2) IO1 Arnel Buela and; (3) IO2
Maria Victoria P. Catabay.

The first prosecution witness, Intelligence Officer 1

Charito O. Mindanao, testified as follows:

She testified that on January 30, 2015, they

implemented a search warrant, issued by Honorable Judge

Page 2 of 14
 Crim. Case No. 3383-M-2011
Decision dated February, 2018

Primo G. Sio, Jr. of RTC Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija,

against Jacob Cordero y Pergis. The subject items of the
search warrant were Methamphetamine Hydrochloride and
drug paraphernalia. In the implementation of the search
warrant, she was assigned as the searcher.

After planning and formation of the group, they

(Agent Meynard Villaluz, Agent Amir Estanislao, Agent
Arnel Buela, Agent Maria Victoria Catabay, Agent David
Bastian, Agent Gladys Cruz, Agent Jessica Bototan and
Agent Paul Pistelos- all agents of PDEA) went to the house
of the accused in Plaridel, Bulacan.

Upon reaching the target place, Agent Villaluz read

the Search Warrant to Jacob Cordero in the presence of
the three (3) witnesses. Thereafter, she started searching
the house. She said that she was accompanied by their
Team Leader Agent Villaluz, arresting officer Agent Buela,
accused Jacob Cordero, and the three (3) witnesses (DOJ
representative, media representative and barangay elected
official). Aside from confiscating methamphetamine
hydrochloride and drug paraphernalia, she also confiscated
two (2) caliber 22 firearm. The two (2) caliber 22 firearm
were recovered inside a paper bag. The paper bag was
inside a storage box on the second floor of the house of
Jacob Cordero. She further said that she noticed the
presence of the subject firearm because she just searched
the things in the house of Jacob Cordero and then she saw
the caliber 22 in the storage box.

When asked if she will be able to identify the subject

firearms, she said that she can recognize it because she
put markings on the firearms, “COM-Exhibit ‘C-1’, 1-30-
2015” and “COM, Exhibit ‘C-2, 1-30-2015”. COM stands for
Charito O. Mindanao. The markings were placed on the
masking tape wrapped around the cylinder of the firearm.

During the continuance, she identified the two (2)

firearms caliber 22 which were marked as Exhibits “K” and
“K-1”. She also testified that the two (2) firearms were
loaded with bullets, five (5) bullets per firearm. The
markings on the bullets were made on the tape. The
plastic containing the bullets were marked as Exhibit “K-
2”.

When asked as to the relevance of the caliber 38

firearm, she said that it was Agent Catabay who recovered
the firearm in the apartment of Jacob Cordero.

On cross- examination, she admitted (1) that their

team was composed of around fifteen (15) police officers;

Page 3 of 14
 Crim. Case No. 3383-M-2011
Decision dated February, 2018

(2) that they conducted a search at 0366 Dap-Dap, Banga

1st, Plaridel, Bulacan where Jacob Cordero alias Ogie was
residing; (3) that at least four (4) persons live on the said
address and they were all present during the search; (5)
that a person in the name of Hendrix was also present in
that address; (6) that the two (2) subject firearms were
recovered from a storage box and not from the body of the
accused; (7) that they only presumed that the two (2)
subject firearms were owned by the accused; (8) that the
previously identified bullets were not stated in her
Sinumpaang Salayasay; (9) that a separate inventory was
made for the subject firearms and the bullets were not
included in any of the inventory.

On re- direct examination, she testified that the

subject firearms were recovered in the place of residence
of Jacob Cordero and this accused was present during the
recovery.

She identified accused in open court. Also, she

identified her Sinumpaang Salaysay and the Inventory she
prepared which were marked as Exhibit “I” and Exhibit “L”
respectively.

No re- cross examination was conducted.

The second prosecution witness, Intelligence Officer I

Arnel Buela, testified as follows:

He testified that on January 30, 2015, he arrested

accused Jacob Cordero for violations of R.A. 9165 and R.A.
10591. The arrest was made by virtue of the seizure of
two (2) caliber 22 with live ammo and drug paraphernalia
including suspected shabu and marijuana from accused
Jacob Cordero.

During the recovery of the seized items, he testified

that he was one and a half meters away from Agent
Mindanao and that the recovery was made in the presence
of the accused including the representatives from DOJ,
media and barangay. He further testified that there are
two (2) firearms that were seized by Agent Mindanao from
the accused.

When asked as to his other participation aside from

assisting Agent Mindanao in apprehending the accused, he
said that he also informed the accused of his constitutional
rights after he arrested him. He further said that he has
no participation in the inventory aside from being a mere
witness.

Page 4 of 14
 Crim. Case No. 3383-M-2011
Decision dated February, 2018

He identified the Affidavit of Arrest which was

marked as Exhibit “C”.

On cross examination, he admitted (1) that the

search warrant was served by Agent Mindanao; (2) that he
was present at the time the subject firearms were found
by Agent Mindanao; (3) that the firearm was found in a
storage bag placed in a black bag; (4) that the black bag
he was referring to was not a paper bag; that the subject
firearms were not found in the possession of the accused.

No re- direct examination was conducted.

When the court asked him if he knew the accused,

he said that he knew the accused and identified the
accused in open court.

The third prosecution witness, Intelligence Officer II

Maria Victoria T. Catabay, testified as follows:

When asked as to what documents she brought

before this Court, she said that she is in possession of the
original copies of the following documents:

A. Two (2) caliber 22 firearms

1. Exhibit “M”- Request for Ballistic Examination;
2. Exhibit “M-1”- Result of the Ballistic
Examination;
3. Exhibit “N”- Request for Firearms and
Explosives for verification of the license of
Jacob Cordero;
4. Exhibit “O’- FED Certification.

B. One (1) caliber 38 firearm

1. Exhibit “M-2” – Request for Ballistic
Examination;
2. Exhibit “M-3”- Result of the Ballistic
Examination;
3. Exhibit “N-1”- Request for FED Certification;
4. Exhibit “O-1”- FED Certification.

The above- mentioned documents were identified by

her. She also identified her Sworn Statement which was
marked as Exhibit “A”.

On cross- examination, she admitted (1) that she

was not the one who arrested the accused; (2) that she
was the who recovered the caliber 38 firearm; (3) that the
caliber 38 firearm was found inside a wooden cabinet and

Page 5 of 14
 Crim. Case No. 3383-M-2011
Decision dated February, 2018

that the firearm was placed in a plastic bag; and (4) that
the firearm was not confiscated from the possession of the
accused.

On re- direct examination, she identified the caliber

38 firearm and 12 live bullets. She said that she was the
one who placed markings on the caliber 38 firearm (EXH.
G MVPC 013015) and 12 live bullets (EXH “G-1” to “G-
12”).

No re-cross examination was conducted.

On December 6, 2017, the prosecution orally formally

offered the following:

Exhibit “A” – Affidavit of Maria Victoria Catabay;

Exhibit “B” – Affidavit of David Bastian;
Exhibit “C” – Affidavit of Arnel Buela;
Exhibit “D” - Inventory of Seized Evidence;
Exhibit “E” – Request for Laboratory Examination;
Exhibit “F” – Chemistry Report (PDEA-RO3-DD015-
012);
Exhibit “G” – another Request for Laboratory
Examination
Exhibit “H” – Chemistry Report (PDEA-RO3-DD015-
013)’
Exhibit “I” – Sinumpaang Salaysay of Charito
Mindanao;
Exhibit “J” - -photograph of team leader;
Exhibit “K”, “K-1” & “K-2” – two (2) caliber 22
revolvers and ten (10) bullets;
Exhibit “L” – Inventory;
Exhibit “M”, “M-1” & “M-2” – Request for Ballistic
Examination, Result of Ballistic
Examination, another Request for
Ballistic Examination
Exhibit “N” & “N-1” – FED Certification for the two
(2) caliber revolvers and FED
certification;
Exhibit “O” & “O-1” – two (2) FED Certifications;
Exhibit “P” – one (1) caliber 38 revolver; and
Exhibit “P-1” to “P-12” – twelve (12) bullets.

The court admitted Exhibits “A”, “C”, “G”, “I”, “K-1”,

“K-2”, “L”, “M”, “M-1”, “M-2”, “N”, “N-1”, “O”, “O-1”, “P”,
and “P-1” to “P-12” as part of the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses who presented and identified the
same.

Page 6 of 14
 Crim. Case No. 3383-M-2011
Decision dated February, 2018

The prosecution then rested its case.

The defense manifested that they will no longer present

any evidence. Hence, these cases were submitted for
decision.

THIS COURT’S FINDINGS

The instant case is for violations of Sec. 28 (a) in

relation to Sec. 28 (e) of R.A. No. 10591 and Sec. 28 (a) of
R.A. No. 10591.

“Sec. 28. Unlawful Acquisition or Possession of Firearms

and Ammunition. –The unlawful acquisition, possession of
firearms and ammunition shall be penalized as follows:

(a) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium

period shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm;

xxxxxxxxxx

(e) The penalty of one (1) degree higher than that

provided in paragraphs (a) to (c) in this section shall
be imposed upon any person who shall continuously
possess any firearm under any or combination of the
following conditions:

xxxxxxxxxx

(i) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period

shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a
Class- A light weapon. If the violation of this
paragraph is committed by the same person charged
with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a
Class-A light weapon, the former violation will be
absorbed by the latter;

xxxxx”

The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime

of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions are: (1)
the existence of subject firearm; and (2) the fact that the
accused who possessed or owned the same does not have
the corresponding license for it. The unvarying rule is that
ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely
Page 7 of 14
 Crim. Case No. 3383-M-2011
Decision dated February, 2018

possession, which includes not only actually physical

possession, but also constructive possession or the
subjection of the thing to one’s control and management.1

To convict an accused for illegal possession of firearms,

two (2) essential elements must be indubitably established,
viz: (a) the existence of the subject firearm which may be
proved by the presentation of the subject firearm or
explosive or by the testimony of witnesses who saw the
accused in possession of the same and (2) the negative fact
that the accused has no license or permit to own or possess
the firearm, ammunition, or explosive which may be
established by the testimony or certification of the PNP
Firearms and Explosives Unit that the accused has no license
or permit to possess the subject firearm or explosive. 2

Guided by the law and jurisprudence on the matter,

this court then perused the overall evidence of the
prosecution to determine whether the accused is criminally
liable for the instant charge.

As per the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,

they implemented a search warrant at the house of accused
Jacob Cordero. The subjects of the search warrant were
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride and drug paraphernalia.
Incidental to their search, they found two (2) caliber 22
revolver and ten (10) bullets inside a paper bag placed
inside a storage box on the 2nd floor of the house. They also
recover one (1) caliber 38 firearm and twelve (12) live
bullets inside a wooden cabinet. Thus, the accused was also
arrested for violation of R.A. No. 10591.

The prosecution witnesses identified the accused in

open court.

So far, these are the only things that the prosecution

had established.

This court NOTES that the prosecution failed to present

and offer the Search Warrant as part of the prosecution’s
evidence. While it may be true that the prosecution
witnesses testified as to the existence of the search warrant,
1 Arnulfo a.k.a. Arnold Jacaban vs. People, G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015
2 Fajardo vs. People, G.R. No. 190889, January 01,2011

Page 8 of 14
 Crim. Case No. 3383-M-2011
Decision dated February, 2018

however, the prosecution failed to present and offered the

same as their evidence. Failure on the part of the
prosecution to present the search warrant is equivalent to
an absence of a search warrant. Thus, absent such a
warrant, the constitutional right against search and seizure
was not validly waived and therefore the items seized are
inadmissible against the accused.

The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to

be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures. 3 Any evidence
obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding. Thus, evidence obtained through unlawful
seizures should be excluded because it is the only practical
means of enforcing the constitution injunction against
unreasonable searches and seizures.4

Without the search warrant, Cordero cannot be held

guilty for the crimes charged. The guilt of Cordero was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt measured by the required
moral certainty required for conviction.

Also, it does not follow that because the offense is

malum prohibitum, the subject thereof is necessarily illegal
per se. Subjects of this kind offense may not be summarily
seized because they are prohibited. A warrant is still
necessary, because possession of any firearm only becomes
unlawful, if the required permit or license is not first
obtained.

Even assuming arguendo that the search warrant was

presented and offered as evidence, accused Jacob Cordero
cannot be held liable for violation of R.A. No. 10951. Law
and jurisprudence outlined the requisites for a search
warrant’s validity, the absence of even one will cause its
downright nullification: (1) it must be issued upon probable
cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the
judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person;
(3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must
determine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and
such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the
3 Article III, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution.
4 People vs. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014

Page 9 of 14
 Crim. Case No. 3383-M-2011
Decision dated February, 2018

warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be

searched and persons or things to be seized. 5 Searching
officers are without discretion regarding what articles they
shall seize. Evidence seized on the occasion of such an
unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and excluded for
being the proverbial “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

In this case, the seized firearms were not found

inadvertently and in plain view. Also, these firearms were
never mentioned by the prosecution witnesses as one of the
objects of the search warrant. It is worthy to recall when
IO1 Mindanao testified and gave the following:

“FISCAL : Do you recall any incident that happened on

that date?

WITNESS : We were going to implement the search

warrant, sir.

Q : When you said search warrant, who issued

this search warrant?

A : Honorable Judge Primo Sio, Jr. of RTC

Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, sir.

Q : And who was the subject in this search

warrant?

A : Jacob Cordero y Pergis, sir.

Q : How about the items being the subject

of the search warrant, can you recall,
Madam Witness?

A : Methamphetamine hydrocholoride and

drug paraphernalia, sir.” (Emphasis
supplied)

xxxx xxxxx xxxx

“FISCAL : In connection with the implementation of the

Search Warrant, what else or what other items
did you confiscate during the raid?

WITNESS : I confiscated two (2) caliber 22, sir.

5 Section 4, Rule 126 of Revised Rules of Court

Page 10 of 14
 Crim. Case No. 3383-M-2011
Decision dated February, 2018

Q : Could you tell this Honorable Court in what

particular place this caliber 22 was located
when you confiscated the same?

A : The paper bag is inside the storage box on

the second floor of the house of Jacob Cordero
and inside the paper bag are the two (2)
caliber 22, sir.
Q : How did you notice the presence of these
firearms during the raid?

A : I just searched the things there in the house

of Jacob Cordero and then I saw caliber 22 in
the storage box, sir.”

On the other hand, the seizure of the caliber 38 firearm

was also not inadvertently found and in plain view. IO2
Catabay testified and gave the following:

“ATTORNEY : Madam Witness, you were not the one who

arrested the accused?

WITNESS : Yes, Ma’am.

Q : You are not the one who confiscated the

subject firearm?

A : I have found caliber 38 only. I was the one

who was able to search and I found caliber 38,
ma’am.

Q : And this caliber 38 was found also in a paper

bag, is that correct?

A : Inside a wooden cabinet, it was placed in a

plastic bag, ma’am.

Q : the caliber 38 was placed inside, was

wrapped in a plastic bag placed inside the
cabinet?

A : Yes, ma’am.

Thus, the three (3) seized firearms and bullets were

found as a result of a vigorous search of the whole house of
the accused.

The plain view doctrine may not be used to launch

unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures or to extend

Page 11 of 14
 Crim. Case No. 3383-M-2011
Decision dated February, 2018

a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of

accused’s guilt. The doctrine is usually applied where a
police officer is not searching for evidence against the
accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object.6

As held in People v. Valeroso 7, in lawful arrests, it

becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending
officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the
person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within
the latter’s reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the
seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the
person of the one arrested or within the area of his
immediate control. The phrase within the area of is control
means the area from within which he might gain possession
of a weapon or destructible evidence. A gun or a table or in
a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous
to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of
the person arrested.

In the present case, the house of Jacob Cordero was a

subject of a search warrant which was served and
implemented in an orderly manner. According to the
prosecution witnesses, the search warrant was read fully to
the accused and thereafter the seizing officers started to
search the premises. They also testified that the subject of
the search warrant were Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
and drug paraphernalia. They searched the whole house of
Jacob Cordero wherein they found the two (2) caliber 22
firearms inside a paper bag placed inside a storage box
while the one (1) caliber 38 firearm was found inside a
wooden cabinet.

Based from the foregoing, we can readily conclude that

the search warrant was orderly served without any sign of
resistance from accused Jacob Cordero. According to IO1
Mindanao and I02 Catabay, they seized the subject firearms
on two different places, in the presence of Jacob Cordero
and the other three (3) witnesses. Thus, the storage box
located in the 2nd floor of the house and the wooden cabinet
cannot be considered as an area within Cordero’s immediate
control because there was no way for him to take any
6 People vs. Cubcubin, G.R. No. 136267, July 10, 2001
7 G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009.

Page 12 of 14
 Crim. Case No. 3383-M-2011
Decision dated February, 2018

weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used

against him.

Considering that the prosecution and conviction of

accused Cordero was founded on the search of the house, a
pronouncement of the illegality of that search means there is
no more evidence to convict accused Cordero.

It must be stressed that in our criminal justice system,

the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts
innocence of the accused, but whether it entertains a
reasonable doubt as to their guilt. Where there is no moral
certainty as to their guilt, they must be acquitted even
though their innocence may be questionable. The
constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty can be overthrown only by proof beyond reasonable
doubt. 8

In our jurisdiction, proof beyond reasonable doubt

requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind; it does not
demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility
of error.9

Well entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the

conviction of the accused must rest, not on the weakness of
the defense, but on the strength of the prosecution. The
burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, not on the accused to prove his
innocence. 10

With the above findings, it can be said that the

prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime charged in the Information.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING PREMISES and for

the miserable failure of the prosecution to establish
sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused
JACOB CORDERO y PERGIS beyond reasonable doubt for
the instant crimes of violations of R.A. 10591 , said accused
is hereby ACQUITTED of the instant charge.
8 People vs. Asis, 439 Phil 707 (2002)
9 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 2.
10 Macayan, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015

Page 13 of 14
 Crim. Case No. 3383-M-2011
Decision dated February, 2018

SO ORDERED.

Malolos, Bulacan, June, 2018.

ISIDRA A. ARGAÑOSA- MANIEGO

Presiding Judge

COPY FURNISHED:

Fiscal Eduardo G. Dela Cruz - OPP, Malolos City, Bulacan

Atty. Desiree G. Candelaria - PAO, Malolos City, Bulacan
IO2 Maria Victoria Catabay - both of PDEA Reg’l. Office III, Camp Olivas,
IO1 Charito Mindanao City of San Fernando, Pampanga
Jacob Cordero - c/o Bulacan Provincial Jail, Malolos City,
Bulacan

Page 14 of 14