People vs.

Liad

Facts:
Accused-appellants Jun Valderama and Edgardo Liad were convicted of Robbery
with Homicide and Illegal possession of firearms under Section 1 PD 1866.

Valderama admitted that he was present at the crime scene but denied any
participation therein. He contended that he was merely passing around the
compound where people were crowding and that the police merely picked him out
in the crowd. Liad admitted that he participated under force by Fortaleza, an
employee of Manuel Cuenco and Quintoa, a.k.a Baeng who died as a result of a
gunshot wound.
Recovered from them are 2 home-made .38 caliber paltik guns.

Manuel Cuenca, the husband of Lydia Cuenca who died as a result of the robbery,
refuted the testimonies of both Liad and Valderama. He contended that he saw both
of them in the crime scene.
Upon appeal, the accused-appellants contended that the TC erred in convicting
them as conspirators in the Robbery with Homicide and for the violation of P.D
1866.

Issue:
WON TC erred in convicting the accused-appellants as conspirators
WON TC erred in convicting them for the violation of P.D 1866

Held:

The Court finds merit in the second assigned error but not in the first.

1. In the first issue, the prosecution was able to establish beyond doubt the
existence of a conspiracy between accused-appellants and Quintoa.
Conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused as before,
during, or after the commission of the crime. The testimony of Manuel
Cuenca deserves great weight as he was able to positively identify the
perpetrators of the crime, he being present when such event happened.
Valderama’s claim that he was merely picked from the crowd cannot be given
credence as courts are inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity of
policemen’s performance of their duties when there is no motive for the
contrary.
2. In cases involving illegal possession of firearm, the requisite elements
are: (a) the existence of the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the
accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the
corresponding license or permit to possess. The latter is a negative
 fact that constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal
possession, and it is the duty of the prosecution not only to allege it
but also to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.41 The Court agrees with
accused-appellants and the Solicitor General that the prosecution in
this case failed to prove the second element. A palitik, just because it
is a home-made gun since it does not necessary follow that a paltik
can not be issued with a license. The proof that a firearm is a paltik
doesn not dispense the proof that it is unlicensed. It still has to be
proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is unlicensed.

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide and are

sentenced to each suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-
appellants are ordered to pay in solidum the heirs of the deceased
Lydia Cuenca the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity for her death,
P50,000.00 as moral damages and P305,265.00 as funeral and burial
expenses.1âwphi1.nê

for illegal possession of firearm, accused-appellants

are ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.