People v.

WalpanLadjaalam (2000)
Panganiban, J.
Facts:
The accused was convicted by the RTC of (1) maintenance of a drug den, (2) direct
assault with multiple attempted homicide, (3) illegal possession of firearmsunder
PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294,and acquitted for the charge of illegal
possession of drugs.
He was arrested during a police drug raid conducted in appellants house by virtue of
a search warrant issued on the same day.
However the search warrant was declared null and void by the trial court because it
had been issued for more than one specific offense or a scatter shot warrant in
violation of Sec. 3, Rule 126 of RoC.
o Shabu seized after search was inadmissible as evidence; the accused was
acquitted for illegal possession of drugs
The arrest however was valid because appellant had shot at the officers with a M14
during the search.
o Rule 113, Sec 5(a) - a peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a personwhen in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
Issue
[Main Issue]
W/N the illegal
possession of
firearms is a
separate
offense.

Holdin
g
No

Ratio
OSG argues that RA 8294, penalizing illegal possession of
firearms is not applicable because its proviso in the 2 nd paragraph
states that no other crime was committed by the person
arrested Hence, because the unlicensed firearm was used to
commit direct assault w/ attempted homicide, RA 9294 should not
be made to apply and the accused must be convicted of a
separate offense of illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866.
Trial Court interpreted the proviso as referring only to homicide
and murder, in both which illegal possession of firearms is an
aggravating circumstance. In other words, a person may still be
convicted of illegal possession of firearms if a crime other than
murder or homicide is committed as with the present case.
Court disagreed on both interpretations. The law is clear: the
accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms,
provided that no other crime was committed by the person
arrested.
When the crime was committed on Sept. 24, 1997, PD
1866 had already been amended by RA 8284 which took
effect on July 6, 1997.
There can be no separate offense of simple illegal
possession of firearms based on the plain meaning of RA
8294.
No express justification that the 2nd paragraph only refers
to homicide and murder.

W/N the TC
erred when it
denied the
request for

No

The Court fails to see the need for an ocular inspection in this
case, especially in the light of the clear testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses.

ocular
inspection of
the scene of
the firefight by
the accused.

The question is recognized to be within the discretion of the trial

judge and there is no reason to disturb the exercise of the same in
the present case.
Viewing the raid would have only delayed the proceedings.

W/N the
prosecution
witnesses
were credible.

Yes

The trial courts assessment of their credibility is generally

accorded respect, even finality. The testimonies of these witnesses
positively showed that appellant had fired upon the approaching
police elements, and that he had subsequently attempted to
escape

W/N the police

planted the
firearms and
shabu.

No

Defense of frame-up is inherently weak. Absent any showing of an

improper motive on the part of the police offices, coupled with the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty, such
defense cannot be given much credence.