Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

Special Twelfth (12 th ) Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR No. 42127

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:
DIAMANTE, F. N., Chairperson,
- versus - LEGASPI, G. F. D., and
*
CALPATURA, C. B., JJ.

GENOELLE SALAGUBANG y
CUSTODIO and JONATHAN
CAMAJEN y SUYAT,
Accused,

JONATHAN CAMAJEN y SUYAT, Promulgated:

Accused-Appellant.
AUGUST 28 2020

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

DECISION
LEGASPI, G. F. D., J.:

Before this Court is an appeal1 under Rule 122 of the Rules of Court
from the Decision2 dated February 23, 2018 (assailed Decision) and the
Resolution3 dated May 4, 2018 (assailed Resolution) of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Tayug, Pangasinan Branch 51 in Criminal Case No. T-6292
for violation of Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Resolution No.
10015.

The Antecedent Facts

On February 1, 2016, accused-appellant Jonathan Camajen y Suyat

(accused-appellant) was charged with violation of COMELEC Resolution
No. 10015. The Information4 docketed as Criminal Case No. T-6292 was
* Acting member per Office Order No. 216-20-RSF dated August 26, 2020.
1 Rollo, p. 11.
2 Rollo, pp. 57-70.
3 Rollo, pp. 71-72.
4 Records, p. 1.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42127
Decision Page 2 of 8

filed before the lower court, which reads:

“That on or about 3:20 o'clock morning January 30, 2016, an

election period for the National and Local candidates covering from
January 10, 2016 to June 8, 2016, along the road of Brgy. Caurdanetaan,
municipality of Umingan, province of Pangasinan, 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,
control and custody one (1) unit of Armscor Rifle, Caliber 22 with serial
number 1143493 with attached scope marked as EEA3, two (2)
magazines assembly loaded with five (5) ammunition each marked as
EEA1, EEA2, EEA4 to EEA8, and EEA9 to EEA13, respectively,
without Authority given him by the Commission on Election
(COMELEC).

CONTRARY TO COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 10015.”5

Additionally, two (2) separate Informations were also filed against

accused-appellant and Genoelle C. Salagubang (Salagubang) for violation of
Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act No. 8294 and
further amended by R.A. No. 10591, otherwise known as “Comprehensive
Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act” before the lower court docketed
as Criminal Case Nos. T-6290 and T-6291.6

When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges

against him.7 With the termination of the pre-trial conference, the trial of the
case commenced.8

The prosecution presented the testimonies of PO2 Elmer Estrada

Almerol9 (PO2 Almerol), SPO1 Ariel Cudal10 (SPO1 Cudal), and PSI
Emetero Macaraeg11 (PSI Macaraeg). Through its evidence, the prosecution
sought to establish the guilt of accused-appellant as follows:

On January 30, 2016, PO2 Almerol, SPO1 Cudal and PO3 Gudy
Abella, Jr. (PO3 Abella) were manning a COMELEC gun ban checkpoint
along the national road of Barangay Caurdenataan, Umingan, Pangasinan.
Around 3:20 a.m., PO2 Almerol saw an uncovered firearm on the lap of a
backrider on board a motorcycle. Immediately, PO2 Almerol flagged down
the motorcycle. The driver was identified as Salagubang and the backrider as

5 Id., p. 1.
6 See assailed Decision, pp. 1-2, Rollo, pp. 57-58.
7 Records, p. 17.
8 See Order dated March 7, 2016, Records, pp. 20-22.
9 See joint affidavit of arrest, Records, p. 6; Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated June 8, 2016,
pp. 3-6.
10 See joint affidavit of arrest, Records, p. 6; TSN dated August 9, 2016, pp. 2-6.
11 See TSN dated May 25, 2016, pp. 4-7.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42127
Decision Page 3 of 8

accused-appellant. PO2 Almerol saw one unit of Armscor rifle 12 caliber 22

bearing serial number 1143493 with an attached scope and inserted
magazine, placed on top the lap of accused-appellant. PO3 Abella inquired
whether accused-appellant has a permit or license to possess the subject
firearm. When accused-appellant answered in the negative, PO2 Almerol
seized the firearm and frisked accused-appellant and Salagubang. PO2
Almerol recovered one magazine loaded with five live ammunition from
accused-appellant while a pouch containing ninety live ammunition was
recovered from Salagubang. Accused-appellant and Salagubang were
brought to the Umingan Community Hospital for physcial and medical
examination. Thereafter, PO2 Almerol, SPO1 Cudal and PO3 Abella brought
accused-appellant and Salagubang to the Umingan police station.

After the inventory13 of the seized items, a request for ballistic

examination14 was prepared by Police Chief Inspector Jose L. Abaya II. The
recovered firearm and ammunition were then turned over to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory Field Office. PSI Macaraeg conducted a
ballistic examination and found that the recovered firearm and ammunition
were serviceable.15

For his part, accused-appellant denied the charges against him.

Accused-appellant testified16 that on January 30, 2016 around 2:00 a.m., he
and Salagubang were on their way home on board a motorcycle. On their
way, they were flagged down at a checkpoint along the road of Barangay
Caurdenataan, Umingan, Pangasinan. PO3 Abella approached them and
asked for the driver's license of Salagubang as well as the registration
documents of the motorcycle. When Salagubang failed to present the same,
they were asked to alight from the motorcycle. Thereafter, accused-appellant
and Salagubang were informed that the motorcycle will be impounded. As a
result, accused-appellant informed PO3 Abella that his uncle is a kumpare of
mayor Tumbocon. Accused-appellant and Salagubang were then brought to
the chief of police. Thereat, accused-appellant introduced himself as an
employee at the municipal hall and requested that they be allowed to go
home. Suddenly, accused-appellant heard someone shouting from the
checkpoint area that a firearm and ammunition were found in their
motorcycle. Accused-appellant and Salagubang were arrested and were
brought to the Medicare hospital for medical examination. Thereafter,
accused-appellant and Salagubang were brought to the police station. During
investigation, accused-appellant saw a long firearm which was allegedly
recovered from them.

12 Records, p. 7.
13 Records, p. 5.
14 Records, p. 8.
15 See appellant's brief, p. 7, Rollo, p. 48.
16 See TSN dated July 26, 2017, p. 3-19.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42127
Decision Page 4 of 8

In the assailed Decision, the lower court convicted accused-appellant

in Criminal Case No. T-6292 after finding him guilty of violating
COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 but cleared him and Salagubang of the
charges violating Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act
No. 8294 and by R.A. No. 10591, otherwise known as “Comprehensive
Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act” docketed as Criminal Case Nos.
T-6290 and T-6291.

According to the lower court, the prosecution failed to prove that

accused-appellant does not have a license or permit to possess the recovered
firearm and ammunition. Nevertheless, under the Omnibus Election Code,
the burden rests upon accused-appellant to prove that he is exempt from the
COMELEC gun ban. Unfortunately, accused-appellant failed to present any
evidence that he is authorized to possess a firearm during the election period.
The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisition, the Court finds the

accused GENOELLE SALAGUBANG and JONATHAN CAMAJEN
NOT GUILTY of the crimes charged in Criminal Case Nos. T-6290 and T-
6291.

As regards Criminal Case No. T-6292, this Court, however, finds accused
JONATHAN CAMAJEN y SUYAT GUILTY of Violation of COMELEC
RESOLUTION NO. 10015 and sentences him to an indeterminate prison
term of One (1) Year, as minimum, to Two (2) Years, as maximum, without
eligibility for probation. Moreover, he shall be disqualified to hold public
office and deprived of the right to suffrage. Finally, the subject firearm and
ammunition shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government,
and disposed of in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.”17

Accused-appellant moved for reconsideration18 but the same was

denied in the assailed Resolution.

Assignment of Errors

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed from the assailed Decision. In

his brief19, accused-appellant submits the sole of error, to wit:

“THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN BRUSHING ASIDE THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF DENIAL DESPITE THE
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE.”20
17 See assailed Decision, pp. 13-14, Rollo, pp. 69-70.
18 Records, pp. 93-97.
19 Rollo, pp. 42-54.
20 See appellant's brief, p. 3, Rollo, p. 44.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42127
Decision Page 5 of 8

Our Ruling

In this case, accused-appellant was charged for violating COMELEC

Resolution No. 10015 on gun ban during election period, which states:

“RULE II
GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 1. Prohibited Acts. - During the Election Period:

a. No person shall bear, carry or transport Firearms or Deadly

Weapons outside his residence or place of business, and in all
public places, including any building, street, park, and in private
vehicles or public conveyances, even if he is licensed or
authorized to possess or to carry the same, unless authorized by
the Commission, through the CBFSP, in accordance with the
provisions of this Resolution;
xxx
c. No person or entity shall transport and deliver Firearms and/or
its parts, Ammunition and/or its components, and Explosives
and/or its components, unless authorized by the Commission,
through the CBFSP, in accordance with the provisions of this
Resolution.”

To recapitulate, PO2 Almerol, together with SPO1 Cudal and PO3

Abella, was manning a COMELEC checkpoint when he saw a rifle on
accused-appellant's lap. Upon inquiry, accused-appellant failed to present an
authorization from the COMELEC to carry the said rifle.

In refuting the claims against him, accused-appellant assails the

credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. He insists that the testimonies of
PO2 Almerol and SPO1 Cudal were too incredulous to warrant belief by the
lower court. Similarly, the testimony of PSI Macaraeg deserves scant
consideration for being hearsay. Thus, the prosecution was unable to
overcome his constitutional presumption of innocence.

It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that the assessment of the

credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court. All questions
bearing on the credibility of witnesses are best addressed by the trial court
by virtue of its unique position to observe the crucial and often
incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’ deportment while testifying,
something which is denied to the appellate court because of the nature and
function of its office.21 Thus, trial court's assessment of the credibility of a
witness is entitled to great weight. It is conclusive and binding unless shown
to be tainted with arbitrariness or unless, through oversight, some fact or
21 See People of the Philippines vs. Esugon, G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42127
Decision Page 6 of 8

circumstance of weight and influence has not been considered. Absent any
showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some
facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, or
that the judge acted arbitrarily, his assessment of the credibility of witnesses
deserves high respect by appellate courts.22

Guided by the foregoing disquisition, We find no cogent reason to

disturb the findings of the lower court that the police officers found in plain
view a rifle in accused-appellant's possession during the gun ban period
enforced by the COMELEC.

Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the “plain view” of an
officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to
seizure and may be presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine applies
when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in
search of the evidence has a 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.23

All the foregoing requirements are present in the instant case. PO2
Almerol, SPO1 Cudal and PO3 Abella lawfully made an initial intrusion to
enforce the gun ban during an election period. They were in a position by
means of the checkpoint from which they can view the piece of evidence
incriminating accused-appellant. The rifle was in plain view and discovered
inadvertently when accused-appellant and Salagubang went to the
checkpoint.

Under Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code,
the burden to adduce evidence that accused is exempt from the COMELEC
gun ban, lies with accused-appellant.24 Section 261 of B.P. Blg. 881, as
originally worded, provides:

“Sec. 261. Prohibited Acts. – The following shall be guilty of an election

offense: x x x

(q) Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business. – Any

person who, although possessing a permit to carry firearms, carries
any firearms outside his residence or place of business during the
election period, unless authorized in writing by the Commission:
Provided, That a motor vehicle, water or air craft shall not be
22 See People of the Philippines vs. Parba-Rural and Almohan-Daza, G.R. No. 231884, June 27, 2018.
23 See Miclat, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176077, August 31, 2011.
24 See Abenes vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 156320,
February 14, 2007.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42127
Decision Page 7 of 8

considered a residence or place of business or extension hereof. x

x x”

Thus, as aptly found by the lower court, the burden is on accused-

appellant to show that he has a written authority to possess such firearm
issued by no less than the COMELEC. Unfortunately, accused-appellant
failed to present such authority.

Lastly, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the

prosecution, the denial of accused-appellant fails to convince Us. The
defense of denial is generally viewed with disfavor due to the facility with
which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that
is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility
than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly,
providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime
committed.25 Thus, We have no other recourse but to affirm accused-
appellant's conviction.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED.

The Decision dated February 23, 2018 and the Resolution dated May 4,
2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan, Branch 51 in
Criminal Case No. T-6292 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
GERMANO FRANCISCO D. LEGASPI
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
FRANCHITO N. DIAMANTE
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
CARLITO B. CALPATURA
Associate Justice

25 See People of the Philippines vs. Alcala, G.R. No. 201725, July 18, 2014.
CA-G.R. CR No. 42127
Decision Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified

that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
FRANCHITO N. DIAMANTE
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Special Twelfth Division