PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROLANDO DE GRACIA, CHITO HENSON and JOHN DOES
- G.R. Number: G. R. Nos. 102009-10
- Promulgated: 1994-07-06
- Ponente: Regalado, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case In December 1989, during a coup d'etat attempt in the Philippines, various government and military installations in Metro Manila were under attack by rebel forces. At around midnight of November 30, 1989, elements of the Philippine Marines and Scout Rangers occupied key military and government sites. On December 1, 1989, a surveillance team led by Maj. Efren Soria was monitoring the Eurocar Sales Office in Quezon City, based on intelligence that it was being used as a communication command post by rebel elements. While observing, a group of five men approached their vehicle, drew guns, and fired upon the team, wounding Sgt. Crispin Sagario. On December 5, 1989, a raiding team conducted a warrantless search of the Eurocar Sales Office, where they found C-4 dynamites, M-16 ammunition, M-shells, and Molotov bombs inside a room belonging to a Col. Matillano. Upon entering, Sgt. Oscar Obenia saw appellant Rolando de Gracia inside the room, holding C-4 and peeking through a door. De Gracia, along with two janitors, was arrested. De Gracia admitted having no license to possess firearms and explosives. He claimed he was an errand boy for Col. Matillano and was merely guarding the office, denying "intent to possess" the explosives. The courts were closed at the time due to the ongoing coup attempts, precluding the securing of a search warrant. De Gracia was charged with illegal possession of ammunition and explosives in furtherance of rebellion and attempted homicide. He was acquitted of attempted homicide but convicted of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The trial court recommended executive clemency after five years of good behavior, based on its interpretation of Article 135, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. This conviction was appealed. ## Issues 1. Whether or not intent to possess (animus possidendi) is an essential element of the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Presidential Decree No. 1866, and if so, whether the appellant had such intent. 2. Whether or not the warrantless search conducted by the raiding team was valid. 3. Whether or not the appellant's possession of the firearms, explosives, and ammunition was for the purpose and in furtherance of rebellion, and if the trial court correctly applied the provisions of the Revised Penal Code in determining the appellant's liability and recommending executive clemency. ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court ruled that **animus possidendi** or intent to possess is an essential element of illegal possession of firearms, even for offenses punished by special laws (malum prohibitum). While criminal intent to commit another crime is not necessary, there must be an intent to perpetrate the prohibited act itself. Temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless possession, without animus possidendi, does not constitute a violation of the law. The Court found that appellant De Gracia had the intent to possess the confiscated articles. As a former soldier, he was familiar with and knowledgeable about the dangerous nature of the dynamites, Molotov bombs, and ammunition. His claim that he was merely an errand boy guarding the explosives for Col. Matillano was not credible. The nature and quantity of the items, found in a car sales office not typically used for storing such items, further indicated that their presence was not for personal defense but for offensive operations, consistent with the ongoing rebellion. **Issue 2:** The Court held that the **warrantless search was valid** as it fell under an exception to the prohibition against warrantless searches. The military operatives had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed, given intelligence reports that the Eurocar office was a rebel headquarters and the prior firing incident. There was also sufficient probable cause. Crucially, the raiding team had no opportunity to secure a search warrant due…
Keywords
G. R. Nos. 102009-10, rebellion, illegal possession of ammunition and explosives in furtherance of rebellion, Presidential Decree No. 1866, attempted homicide, conspiracy, coup d' etat, rightist group, Molotov bombs, M-16 ammunition, C-4 dynamites, surveillance, RAM-SFP, communication command post, wounding, raid, search warrant, warrantless search, exigent circumstances, plain view doctrine