REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 112233

-versus- RTC Br. 1, Makati City
Criminal Case No. 9876
For: Violation of Section
28(a), R.A. No. 10591

KARL FREDERICK ALMASEN

y PANGILINAN
Accused-Appellant.
x-----------------------------x

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

The appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, through the

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG),
respectfully states:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This is an appeal from the Decision dated May 3,

2022 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial
Region, Branch 1, Makati City, finding accused-appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sec. 28(a),
Republic Act No. 10951, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court

finds accused Karl Frederick Almasen y Pangilinan
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense
charged and hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1)
day as minimum to eight (8) years as maximum.
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

The firearm subject of the offense is hereby

confiscated in favor of the government to be disposed
of in accordance with the law.

SO ORDERED.1

The above judgment of conviction arose the from

2.
the Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 9876, for
violation of Section 28(a) of the Republic Act No. 10591
dated July 6, 2017, the accusatory portion of which reads:

“That on or about June 30, 2017, in the City of

Makati, Philippines, the said accused did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his
possession and under his custody and control one
(1) improvised shotgun, without first having secured
the necessary license from the proper authorities.

Contrary to law.”2

3. On July 12, 2017, accused-appellant posted bail

furnished by Malingap Insurance and Surety Corporation in
the amount of P100,000, before Branch 3 of the Regional
Trial Court of Makati City. He was released on July 13, 2017.

4. Upon arraignment on August 23, 2017, the

appellant entered a plea of not guilty for the offense. Pretrial
proceeded and was terminated.

5. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The

prosecution presented the testimonies of PO1 Santi Santillan
and SPO1 Juanito Donio. PO2 Sukarno Ching was also
presented to rebut the testimonies of the accused and his
witness Austria.

6. On May 3, 2022, the trial court rendered judgment

of conviction now assailed by accused-appellant on a lone
assignment of error:

1
Judgment dated May 3, 2022.
2
Information dated July 6, 2017.

2
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
UNDER SECTION 28(A) OF REPUBLIC ACT
10591 DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S
FAILURE TO PROVE ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S
GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.3

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS

7. The statement of Facts in the Accused-Appellant’s

Brief contained inaccuracies, which need to be rectified, lest
this Honorable Court be misled.

8. On June 30, 2017, at about 10:50PM, along

Melbourne Avenue corner Auckland St., Makati City, police
officers P01 Santi Santillian, P02 Mario Cosio, and P02
Sukarno Ching were dispatched to conduct an
anti-criminality patrol because of persistent reports of
holdup/robbery perpetrated within the jurisdiction of PS-15
by persons riding in tandem.4

9. While the said police officers were on patrol, they

noticed from a distance of 10 meters the accused-appellant
and Austria onboard a motorcycle.5 Accused-appellant was
not wearing any helmet, while Austria was wearing a bonnet
mask.6 Both accused-appellant and Austria were acting
suspiciously while they were driving. They intentionally
followed an old woman who was carrying a bag and walking
beside the street.7

10. The police officers flagged them down, however, the

accused-appellant and Austria did not heed the former and
sped away, hence, the police officers pursued the latter. 8

3
Appellant’s Brief dated May 17, 2022, p. 5.
4
Id, p. 5.
5
TSN, P01 Santillian, p. 18.
6
Id, p. 5.
7
TSN, P01 Santillian, p. 23.
8
Id, p. 5.

3
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

11. Accused-appellant and Austria reached a Unioil

gasoline station and stopped. The police officers introduced
themselves as policemen.9 P01 Santillian noticed that the
accused-appellant had something protruding or bulging
inside his shirt.10

12. The former then ordered the latter to lift his shirt
and saw an improvised shotgun (sumpak).11 The police
officers also conducted a protective patdown on the person
of Austria, which yielded an “balisong”, which was tucked in
his pants.12

13. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was brought to

PS-15 and was presented to the investigator with the
confiscated articles.13

14. Judith Austria then arrived at PS-15 and retrieved

the personal belongings of the accused-appellant and
Austria. These consisted of their wallets, mobile phones, and
the motorcycle key.14

15. During the arrest, suspects were informed of the

reason of their arrest and their constitutional rights in
Tagalog, a language known to and understood by them.
Suspects were brought to the Makati General Hospital for
physical and medical examination.15 Dr. Maria Bailey O.
Miranda issued a Medical Certificate finding that there is no
external signs of physical injury at the time of examination.16

16. The accused-appellant and Austria was then

presented for inquest and the information was filed.17

17. During trial, the subject firearm was presented in

open court, identified as the same firearm confiscated from
the accused, marked, and offered in evidence. The
prosecution also presented a certification from the Firearms
and Explosives Office in Camp Crame that accused is not
qualified to possess any kind of firearm.18

9
Id, p. 5.
10
Id, p. 5.
11
Supra, TSN P01 Santillian, p. 19.
12
Id., p. 5.
13
Id., p. 8.
14
Id., p. 9.
15
Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated July 1, 2017, p. 1.
16
Medical Certificate dated July 17.
17
Id., p. 1.
18
Id., p. 8.

4
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

ARGUMENTS

There was a valid stop and frisk

search and the seized “sumpak”
was admissible in evidence.

The prosecution was able to prove

that all the elements of the crime
were established.

Appellant’s defenses of denial and

alibi are inherently weak and cannot
overcome the credible testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses.

DISCUSSION

There was a valid stop and

frisk search and the seized
“sumpak” was admissible
in evidence.

18. Accused-appellant asserts that the existence of

the irregularity to the conduct of the anti-criminality patrol
of the involved police officers shows that there exists an
illegal warrantless arrest and the seized sumpak should be
held inadmissible as evidence. Accused-appellant also
submits that the anti-criminality patrol or checkpoint were
irregularly conducted by the involved police officers and
invalid, and that the “stop and frisk” principle cannot be
applied in this case. Further, accused-appellant also asserts
that he is still not precluded to assail the admissibility of the
evidence, specifically the “sumpak”, which have been seized
during an illegal warrantless arrest.19

19. Accused-appellant’s arguments deserve scant

consideration.

19
Appellants Brief, pp. 6-12.

5
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

20. When the accused-appellant and Austria were

flagged down by the police officers, the former instead of
stopping, sped away, which gave the latter a reasonable
belief of an irregularity in the conduct of the
accused-appellant and Austria which led to a lawful inquiry,
search, and seizure.

21. During the cross-examination of PO1 Santillan, they

noticed during their patrol that the accused-appellant and
Austria onboard a motorcycle was not wearing any helmet,
while Austria was wearing a bonnet mask.20 Both
accused-appellant and Austria were acting suspiciously while
they were driving. They intentionally followed an old woman
who was carrying a bag and walking beside the street.21

Q: Where exactly did you see the accused?

A: Sa kanto ng Melbourne Avenue at Auckland

Street.

Q: What was he doing at that time?

A: He was driving.

Q: Because the motorcycle was moving, what

did you do?

A: Pinara po namin, pero hindi sila huminto.

Q: By the way, at that time, were you wearing police

uniforms?

A: Hindi po, naka-civilian attire lang po kami. Pero

nung tinanong namin sila sa gas station, nagpakilala
po kami na pulis.

Q: What did you do, if any, when the accused

did not stop?

A: Hinabol po namin hanggang sa huminto po

sila sa Unioil gas station sa may Melbourne
Avenue.

Q: And then, what happened next?

A: Nilapitan po namin sila at tinanong kung saan sila

papunta. Sabi po nila bibili po silang lechon manok
para sa isang birthday party.

20
Id, p. 5.
21
TSN, P01 Santillian, p. 23.

6
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

Q: And the reason that you chased after them

was that they were both not hearing any
helmet, correct?

A: Yes, sir. Also, they were also acting

suspiciously while they were driving.

Q: What do you mean by that statement?

A: When they were driving, hindi dire-diretso

yung takbo nila. Tapos po, masama po yung
tingin nung Almasen doon sa matandang babae
na may dalang bag at naglalakad sa gilid ng
daan.

Q: When you noticed na “masama ang tingin nila sa

matandang babae,” how far were you from the
accused when you noticed that?

A: About five to seven meters.

Q: And you were behind the suspects?

A: Sa likod po nila. Nasa kanto lang po kami ng

Melbourne at Auckland. Nakahinto kami sa gilid ng
7-eleven.

Q: If you were behind the suspects, how did

you know na “masama ang tingin nila sa
matandang babae”?

A: Because when they passed by the old

woman, they kept looking at her. Pahinto-hinto
po sila na parang sinusundan nila yung
matandang babae.22

22. In the case of Posadas v. Court of Appeals,23

saw the Supreme Court uphold the warrantless search and
seizure done as a valid stop and frisk search. There, the
accused's suspicious actions, coupled with his attempt to
flee when the police officers introduced themselves to him,
amounted to a reasonable suspicion that he was concealing
something illegal in his buri bag. However, Posadas failed to
elaborate on or describe what the police officers observed as
the suspicious act that led them to search the accused's buri
bag.
22
Id., pp. 22-24.
23
Posadas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89139, August 2, 1990

7
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

23. Under the Revised Philippine National Police

Operational Procedures24, Stopping and Frisking
(Pat-Down Search), the police officer may stop a person
only when there is genuine reason to believe, based
on experiences and the particular circumstances that
a criminal activity may be afoot. The police officer
must be able to point to specific facts that, when
taken together with rational inferences, reasonably
warrant the stop. Such facts include, but not limited to the
following:
c) The person is carrying something illegal or
when his/her clothing bulges in a manner that
suggests he/she is carrying a weapon; and

d) The person is seen at the time and place

proximate to an alleged crime incident and/or flees
at the sight of a police officer.

24. Body Frisking (Pat-Down Search). A police officer

has the right to perform body frisking if the person has been
stopped with genuine reason to believe that he/she carries
weapon/s and poses a threat to the police officer’s or
another person’s safety. Circumstances which may justify
body frisking (pat-down search) include but not limited to
the following:

a) Visual indication suggesting that the person is

carrying a firearm or other deadly weapon.

Procedures and Guidelines in Stopping:

e) Police officers are not required to inform the

person of his/ her rights under the law (i.e. Miranda
Warning, Anti-torture law, etc.) unless the person is
placed under arrest.

24
https://pnp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/POP-Manual-2021.pdf

8
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

25. In direct contrast with warrantless searches

incidental to a lawful arrest, stop and frisk searches are
conducted to deter crime. In People v. Cogaed,25 the
Supreme Court underscored that they are necessary for law
enforcement, though never at the expense of violating a
citizen's right to privacy. "Stop and frisk" searches
(sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are necessary for
law enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given the
legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses.
However, this should be balanced with the need to protect
the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section
2 of the Constitution.

26. In this case, the police officers were ordered by

their Station Commander to conduct an anti-criminality
patrol based on the report that there were riding in tandem
in the area.26 The police were practicing utmost vigilance
during patrol. The suspicious acts of accused-appellant and
Austria while they were five to seven meters away is not too
great of a distance to render impossible for the police
officers to have seen the suspicious acts of herein
accused-appellant, and the bulging of the improvised
shotgun in accused-appellant’s shirt while they were stopped
at the gas station. As experienced police officers, taken
together with their rational inferences, they found probable
cause to reasonably warrant the stop and frisk of
accused-appellant and Austria.

27. Further, under the plain view doctrine, objects

falling in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be
in the position to have the view are subject to seizure and
may be presented in evidence. The doctrine requires that:
“(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence
has prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from
which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the
evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure.”27

25
People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014
26
Ibid., pp. 21-22.
27
People v. Acosta G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019

9
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

28. Further, Sec. 1 of 117 of the Revised Rules on

Criminal Procedure provides that “at any time before
entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the
complaint or information.”

29. Accused-appellant’s failure to quash the

information and his participation during the trial placed him
in estoppel to raise the ligelly of his arrest. In the case of
People v. Costelo,28 the Supreme Court noted that the
legality of arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court
over the person of the accused. Consequently, if objection
on such ground is waived, the illegality of the arrest is not
sufficient reason for setting aside an otherwise valid
judgment rendered after the trial, free from error. The
technicality cannot render the subsequent proceedings void
and deprive the State of its right to convict the guilty when
the facts on the record point to the culpability of the
accused.

30. Relatedly, in People v. Solomon,29 the Supreme

Court ruled that the “accused-appellant's failure to question
the legality of his arrest through a motion to quash, coupled
with his active participation in the trial and the presentation
of evidence, placed him in estoppel”.

31. Verily, any irregularities were cured upon his

submission to the trial court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the
lower court did not err in admitting the evidence presented
being a lawful stop and frisk and application of the plain
view doctrine.

The prosecution was able to

prove that all the elements
of the crime were established.

32. The essential elements in the prosecution for the

crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition are:
(1) existence of the firearm, ammunition or explosive; (2)
ownership or possession of the firearm, ammunition or
explosive; and (3) lack of license to own or possess.30

28
316 SCRA 895 [1999].
29
G.R. No. 246579, February 19, 2020,
30
Saluday v. People, G.R. No. 215305, April 3, 2018

10
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

33. Relatedly, the corpus delicti in the crime of illegal

possession of firearms is the accused's lack of license or
permit to possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself is
not prohibited by law. To establish the corpus delicti, the
prosecution has the burden of proving that the firearm exists
and that the accused who owned or possessed it does not
have the corresponding license or permit to possess or carry
the same.31

34. In this case, the prosecution had proved beyond

reasonable doubt the existence of the aforesaid elements.
The police officers positively identified accused-appellant as
the one in possession of the improvised shotgun or sumpak.
The said sumpak were properly marked and admitted in
evidence when offered during trial. The existence of the
sumpak was established through the testimonies of police
officers PO1 Santi Santillan and PO2 Sukarno Ching.
Accused-appellant and Austria did not even object to the
existence of the seized illegal firearm.

35. Accused-appellant’s alibi and mere denial of

ownership will not suffice since the stories of
accused-appellant are self-serving and can easily be
fabricated.

36. In People v. Ramos, it has been held that

Self-serving statements cannot be accorded greater
evidentiary weight than the declaration of a credible witness
on affirmative matters. Time-tested is the rule that between
the positive assertion of prosecution witnesses and the
negative averment of an accused, the former undisputedly
deserves more credence and is entitled to greater
evidentiary value. As it has been oft pronounced, both denial
and alibi are inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail
over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution
witness that [Ramos] was the author of the crime charged.32

31
Sayco v. People, G.R. No. 159703 March 3, 2008.
32
G.R. No. 200077, September 17, 2014.

11
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

37. The first and second elements were clearly

established and present at the time of the arrest. The
arresting officers found and retrieved the “sumpak” from the
person of the accused-appellant33 after they were frisked.
The accused-appellant’s alibi cannot overthrow the version
of the prosecution witnesses since it is more worthy of credit
than the mere uncorroborated and self-serving assertion of
accused-appellant.

38. Lastly, the Memorandum dated September 21,

2017 issued by Police Superintendent Amy Santiago clearly
states that accused-appellant and Austria are not
licensed/registered firearm holders of any kind of caliber. It
is corroborated by the testimony of the witnesses. Hence,
the presence of the third element of the offense, specifically
the lack of license to own or possess, are sufficiently
established and proven beyond reasonable doubt.

39. In sum, the prosecution’s credible testimonies,

coupled with the documentary evidence indicating that
appellant is not a registered firearms holder undoubtedly
and sufficiently establish the elements of the crime. With
the existence of all three (3) elements, the trial court was
correct in finding the accused-appellant guilty of violating
Section 28(a) of R.A. No. 10591.

Appellant’s defenses of
denial and alibi are
inherently weak and cannot
overcome the credible
testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses.

40. The version of facts of the accused-appellant

contained inaccuracies, which need to be rectified, lest this
Honorable Court be misled.

33
TSN dated October 16, 2017, p. 19

12
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

41. The accused-appellant and Austria alleged that the

police officers threatened and demanded from them
PhP100,000.00 in exchange for their liberty. Due to their
failure to heed from the police officer’s demand, the
weapons were used as evidence against them.34
Accused-appellant and Austria even alleged that together
with Austria, they were brought to the police station where
they were detained in an empty room and mauled for an
hour.
Accused-appellant’s in his direct testimony:

Q: So you said you were arrested and brought to the

police station. What happened after, if any?

A: They brought me to an empty room in the police

station and mauled me and Vlad for more than an
hour. They also demanded money from us in the
amount of PhP100,000 in exchange for our freedom.

Q: What did they use in mauling you?

A: They used a yantok, sir.

Q: Where were you hit?

A: In the head, jaw, and hands.

Q: Afterwards, what happened?

A: The police officers detained us at a “hidden cell”

beside the Station Commander’s Office. The cell is
hidden from plain view with a curtain. If you take
away the curtain, it will reveal a door leading toward
a cell.35

Accused-appellant during his cross-examination:

Q: You also said you were mauled by the policemen,

correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Do you have any medical certificate to prove

your injuries?

A: Wala po.

Q: And you said that the police took turns in

mauling you and Austria for more than an hour,
is that correct?

34
Appellant’s Brief dated May 17, 2022, p. 14.
35
Ibid, p. 28.

13
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

A: Yes.

Q: So when the police officers brought you to the

hospital, did the doctor examine your injuries?

A: No, sir. I was wearing a long sleeved shirt at that

time.

Q: But you said earlier that you were hit by the

policemen in the head, jaw, and hands, am I
correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And despite that, the doctor did not see any

injuries on your body?

A: Yes, sir.36

Corroborating, the allegations of the

accused-appellant, witness Austria also states in his
testimony the following:

Q: Afterwards, what happened, if any?

A: We were arrested by the policemen and brought

to the police station.

Q: At the police station, what happened, if any?

A: They brought us to an empty room and mauled us

both. They also demanded from us PhP100,000 in
exchange for our freedom.

Q: You said you were mauled. What injuries, if

any, did you suffer?

A: I suffered injuries in the head and cuts in my

cheeks. Dumugo po yung ilong ko.

Q: So, after you were mauled by the policemen,

what happened, if any?

A: We were brought to the Makati General

Hospital for medical examination.

Q: Who examined you in the hospital?

A: It was a doctor.

Q: How did the doctor examine you?

A: The doctor merely asked us how we were feeling.

Q: And what was your response?

36
Ibid, p. 32

14
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

A: I replied that I wasn’t feeling anything unusual.

Q: Why did you decide to tell the doctor you were

not feeling anything unusual?

A: Because we were threatened by Officer Cosio with

bodily harm if we spoke ill against the police officers.

Q: And what were you wearing when you were

brought to the hospital?

A: I was wearing a sando and shorts, sir.

Q: After the physical examination, what happened, if

any?

A: We were brought inside the patrol car.

42. However, the medical certificate issued by Dr.

Maria Bailey O. Miranda shows that there are no
external signs of physical injury at the time of
examination.37

43. If the above statements were true that

accused-appellant were indeed hit with a yantok on
their head, face, and other parts of their body by the
police officers; and that Austria was only wearing
sando and shorts at the time they were brought to the
hospital; then it is therefore highly unimaginable and
unnatural to ordinary human experience that the
attending physician did not notice the physical injuries
they were suppose to have incurred. It is impossible or
uncommon to human experience, especially to the
attending physician, not to notice the injuries of two
persons who have been mauled for over an hour with a
yantok.

44. Moreover, aside from their inconsistent and

self-serving testimonies of the accused-appellant, he
and Austria even admit that they do not have proof
showing that they were indeed mauled in exchange for
money by the police officers.

37
Medical Certificate dated July 1, 2017.

15
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

45. In addition, the accused-appellant argued that he

was made to choose between “shabu”, “sumpak”, and
“balisong.”38 On the other hand, Austria said that there was
only the “sumpak” and the “balisong”39 The pair could not
even agree on what really occurred. They have conflicting
statements as to who chose first. According to
accused-appellant, he had to choose the “sumpak” because
Austria already took the “balisong”40 While according to
Austria, it was the other way around.41

Accused-appellant in his direct testimony:

A: Right after we were taken to the hospital for

medical examination, PO2 Cosio was holding sachet
of shabu, a sumpak and a balisong. Officer Cosio
asked me to choose what evidence would be used
against me.

Q: And what was your response?

A: I chose the sumpak, sir.

Q: Why did you choose the sumpak?

A: Because Vladimir already chose the

balisong, and I didn’t want to choose the
sachet of shabu.

Witness Austria in his direct testimony:

Q: After the physical examination, what happened,

if any?

A: We were brought inside the patrol car. Q: What

happened, if any, inside the patrol car?

A: PO2 Cosio showed us a sumpak and balisong,

and ordered to us pick which of the two weapons
will be used against us in a criminal case.

Q: What did you choose?

A: I chose the balisong, sir.

Q: Why did you choose the balisong?

A: Karl already chose the sumpak, so I had no

choice but to choose the balisong.
38
Ibid, p. 29
39
Ibid, p. 38
40
Ibid, p. 30
41
Ibid, p. 35

16
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

Q: So it was Karl who first chose the sumpak?

A: Yes, sir

46. On the other hand, the police officers were

consistent with their testimonies that they saw the bulge in
the accused-appellant’s arm.42

47. It also bears emphasis that the prosecution

witnesses, being police officers, are entitled to the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their official
duty.43 In the case of Bustillo v. People44, the Court had
the occasion of ruling that, “​​presumption of regularity of
official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of
irregularity or failure to perform a duty.” The
accused-appellant did not present any evidence to rebut or
to question the acts done by the police officers. The latter
was able to present the Affidavit of Arrest,45 the Firearm’s
[sic] Holder Verification Report46, and the “sumpak”47 - the
corpus delicti of the crime.

48. Thus, the presumption prevailed, there being no

clear and convincing evidence presented to the contrary.48
The testimonies of accused-appellant and Witness Austria
were self-serving and cannot be relied upon. They also
failed to prove that there was ill-motive on the part of these
police officers to frame him and witness Austria. They
merely denied the allegations without presenting evidence in
support of his alibi and defense.

49. All told, appellant’s conviction for violation of Sec.

28(a), Republic Act No. 10951 must be sustained.

42
TSN, PO1 Santillan, page 19 (See also Judgment, page 7 and Annex “A”, Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated
July 1, 2017, page 11)
43
Rule 131 Sec. 3, par. m of Revised Rules of Evidence.
44
G.R. No. 160718, May 12, 2010
45
Annex “A”, Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated July 1, 2017
46
Annex “D”, Firearm’s Holder Verification Report dated September 21, 2017
47
Supra, note 32
48
Supra, note 47.

17
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed that the appealed Judgment, being in accord with the
law and the evidence on record, be AFFIRMED in toto.

Makati City, June 25, 2022.

sgd.
JOSELITO Y. BAUTISTA
Associate Solicitor
Roll of Attorneys No. 8888
IBP No. 88889/Muntinlupa City/February 22, 2023
MCLE Compliance No. VIII-02222023/02-25-23

sgd.
CZARINA R. BORLONGAN
Associate Solicitor
Roll of Attorneys No. 2994
IBP No. 720499/Makati City/January 4, 2022
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0009420/02-03-22

sgd.
MARIA CECILIA LOUISE CABRAL
Associate Solicitor
Roll of Attorneys No. 9045
IBP No. 01234/Makati City/June 1,2022
MCLE Compliance No. V-001234/05-01-2022

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City
Tel. No. 988-1674/Telefax No. 817-6037
Email: [email protected]

18
Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee
People v. Karl Frederick Alamsen
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 112233
x—---------------------------x

COPY FURNISHED:

Atty. Juan Dela Cruz

Unit 143, 136 APMC Building Rada Street,
Legaspi Village, Makati City
Tel. No. 8878-5440 / 8878-5456
Email: [email protected]

The Honorable Judge

Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Makati City

City Prosecutor, Makati City

16F Makati City Hall (New Bldg.)
JP Rizal, Brgy. Poblacion,
Makati City

MANIFESTATION

Filing in court and service on the adverse party are

being done by registered mail due to lack of manpower to
affect the personal service.

MARIA CECILIA LOUISE CABRAL

Associate Solicitor

19