Answer
Uploaded by
attycertfiedpublicaccountantAnswer
Uploaded by
attycertfiedpublicaccountantREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
4th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Malalag-Sulop
Malalag, Davao del Sur
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
CRIM CASE
No. 5659
Plaintiff,
-versusFOR: Violation of Sec. 31
JARILITO INOJALES,
of RA 10591
Accused.
x------------------------------------/
COMMENT/OPPOSTION TO THE Motion for Judicial
Determination of Probable Cause
Comes now the State, through the undersigned government prosecutor, and unto
this Honorable Court, most respectfully files the Opposition to the Motion for the Judicial
Determination of Probable Cause and avers:
That the said Motion deserves DENIAL based on the following grounds:
1. That mere carrying of a firearm outside his residence without any
authority or permit to do so, consummates the offense of Violation of
Republic Act No. 10591 or AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A
COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF;
a. In paragraph 12 of the said Motion, the accused ADMITTED that he
had no permit to present when he was arrested because according to
him, his application for the renewal of his PTCFOR had not yet acted
upon by the government agency concerned. Further, accused argued
that the reason he was not able to present his PTFCOR because the
government agency concerned in issuing the same ran out of plastic
cards. Such argument is a mere alibi just to exculpate him from the
offense charged against him. Such argument is self-serving. There
could be another reason why the accused failed to secure the required
PTCFOR.
b. As defined under RA 10591, Permit to Carry Firearm Outside of
Residence is a written authority issued to any person by the Chief of
Constabulary which entitles such person to carry his licensed or
lawfully issued firearms outside of residence. There is nothing in the
said law that an Order of Payment can be also considered as Permit to
Carry Firearm Outside of Residence. That the accused took the risk of
being arrested when he carried his firearm outside his residence
without securing first the required PTCFOR.
c. Be it noted also that the offense charged is a mala prohibitum. In
crimes that are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently
immoral but become punishable only because the law says they are
Page 2 of 3
forbidden. With these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has
been violated. Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are
prohibited for reasons of public policy. In this case, the offense
charged was committed when the accused failed to present his
PTCFOR when asked by the arresting officers.
d. Hence, the accused cannot invoke that he already applied to obtain
PTCFOR as a defense against a prosecution for illegal possession of
firearms, as this is a malum prohibitum.
2. That the confiscation of the firearm and ammunitions of the accused
was made in accordance with the Plain View Doctrine.
a. The accused argued that it is improbable for the arresting officers
to identify that what was tucked from the waist of the accused was
a .45 caliber pistol is another a mere alibi.
b. 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.
c. All the foregoing requirements are present in the instant case. The
law enforcement officers were properly in a position from which
they particularly viewed the area where the accused were arrested
pursuant to the Warrant of Arrest for one Dennis Erona Jojo
Bacus issued by Judge Retrin E. Fuentes, presiding judge of
RTC 10 of Davao City. In the course of such lawful intrusion, the
policemen came inadvertently saw the guns tucked into the waist
of the accused and his companion Luis B. Duterte. The guns were
in plain view and discovered inadvertently when the accused and
his companions were about to leave the cockpit arena. Thus, the
confiscation of the firearms and its ammunition are in accordance
with the law.
d. Furthermore, the presumption of regularity in the performance of
duties in favor of the police operatives had not been overturned in
the absence of clear showing that they had been impelled by any ill
motive to falsely testify against the accused for such offense.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, prosecution most respectfully
prays that the Motion For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause be DENIED.
Page 3 of 3
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Digos City, Davao del Sur, Philippines, this 15th day of December 2015.
CHRISTOPHER ROY S. CABARDO
Deputy Provincial Prosecutor
Digos City, Davao del Sur
Copy Furnished: Atty. Flor Sardido - 8002 Digos City, Davao del Sur
