Scribd
Upload
242 views1 page

Eugene C. Firaza vs. People

1) Petitioner, a confidential NBI agent, was issued a firearm and mission order but his permit to carry the firearm outside his residence had expired over a month prior. 2) During a heated argument over a business deal, petitioner pointed his gun at Christopher Rivas. He was then arrested and charged with unauthorized carrying of a licensed firearm outside his residence. 3) The court found that while petitioner's mission order allowed him to carry the firearm, it did not authorize him to carry it outside his residence. At the time of the incident, petitioner was dealing with a private business matter rather than on NBI business. Therefore, his conviction was upheld.

Uploaded by

Aaliyah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
242 views1 page

Eugene C. Firaza vs. People

1) Petitioner, a confidential NBI agent, was issued a firearm and mission order but his permit to carry the firearm outside his residence had expired over a month prior. 2) During a heated argument over a business deal, petitioner pointed his gun at Christopher Rivas. He was then arrested and charged with unauthorized carrying of a licensed firearm outside his residence. 3) The court found that while petitioner's mission order allowed him to carry the firearm, it did not authorize him to carry it outside his residence. At the time of the incident, petitioner was dealing with a private business matter rather than on NBI business. Therefore, his conviction was upheld.

Uploaded by

Aaliyah
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Eugene C. Firaza vs.

People of the Philippines


GR No. 179319 (September 18, 2009)
J. Carpio Morales

Facts:
Petitioner is a confidential agent of the NBI, Caraga Region, and was issued a firearm and a mission to
gather and report to the NBI relevant information for the latter’s investigation. In his private capacity, petitioner
served as manager of RF Communications, in connection with which he dealt with Christopher Rivas for the
establishment of a business, a Public Calling Office in Lianga, Surigao del Sur. On August 11, 2000, petitioner
and Rivas had a heated argument concerning a defective machine for the Public Calling Office and during said
argument petitioner pointed his gun at Rivas. Thereupon, petitioner was accosted by the Chief of Police of
Lianga, Surigao del Sur and another police officer. It was then discovered that petitioner’s permit to carry firearm
outside residence had expired more than a month earlier. Hence, a criminal complaint was filed against petitioner
at the MCTC for “UNAUTHORIZED CARRYING OF LICENSED FIREARM OUTSIDE RESIDENCE”. Petitioner
claims that the Complaint charged him with “illegal possession of firearms” hence he cannot be convicted of
“carrying firearms outside of residence”. Petitioner concludes that since he had authority to carry firearm it was
error to convict him. The MCTC convicted petitioner and sentenced him to an imprisonment of 1 month and 10
days of Arresto Mayor. On appeal, the RTC upheld petitioner’s conviction. Hence, this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner can be convicted of an offense different from that charged in the complaint.

Held: We qualify.

The courts below committed an error when they said that the authority of petitioner to carry firearm
outside residence expired on July 26, 2000. The Mission Order issued to petitioner allowed him to carry his
issued firearm Pistol Cal. 45 with him, which Mission Order is good for 60 days from issuance thereof.

Petitioner’s argument fails.


Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that a complaint or information is sufficient if it states
the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of
as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the
offense; and the place where the offense was committed. Hence, the allegations in a Complaint or Information
determine what offense is charged. The alleged acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense need
not be in the terms of the statute determining the offense, but in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of
common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.
In the case at bar, the Complaint alleged that the accused “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possessed
one unit Pistol Cal. 45 with serial number 670320 and entered the residence of Christopher Rivas at Lianga,
Surigao del Sur with expired license or permit to carry outside residence.” The words used to indicate or describe
the offense charged that “petitioner unlawfully carried his firearm outside his residence because he had no permit
for the purpose” are clear. They are self-explanatory. Hence, petitioner cannot seriously claim that his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him was violated. The
transcript of stenographic notes of the proceedings before the trial court shows otherwise.

Petitioner justifies his carrying of the firearm outside his residence with the July 26, 2000 Mission Order
issued to him by the NBI. The Court claims that petitioner is mistaken. Under the implementing Rules and
Regulations of P.D. No. 1866, a Mission Order is defined as “a written directive or order issued by government
authority as enumerated in Section 5 hereof to persons who are under his supervision and control for a definite
purpose or objective during a specified period and to such place or places as therein mentioned which may entitle
the bearer thereof to carry his duly issued or licensed firearms outside of residence when so specified therein.”
Permit to carry firearm is NOT the same as permit to carry licensed firearm outside one’s residence. Accordingly,
the Mission Order issued to petitioner authorized him to carry firearms “in connection with confidential cases
assigned to him”. Admittedly, petitioner was at Rivas’ place in connection with a private business transaction.
Additionally, the Mission Order did not authorize petitioner to carry his duly licensed firearm outside of his
residence.

You might also like