2.

MALLARI V. CA - FRANCISCO
Doctrine:
The fact that the firearm seized is a paltik or homemade gun and that it is
illegally manufactured does not dispense with requirement of proof that it is
unlicensed.
In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution has the
burden of proving the elements thereof, viz: (a) the existence of the subject
firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not
have the corresponding license or permit to possess the same, a negative fact
which constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense which the prosecution
has the duty not only to allege but also to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts:

27 Dec 1990, at around 2:30 p.m., Pat. Manipon and Pfc. Esguerra
received reliable information that Diosdado Mallari, who has a standing
warrant of arrest in connection with Criminal Case for Homicide was seen
at Sitio 14, Sta. Rita, Capas, Tarlac.
lmmediately upon receipt of such information, Manipon with Esguerra and
Pat. Simbulan, with personal knowledge of the existence of a standing
warrant of arrest against Mallari in connection with Criminal Case for
Homicide, immediately proceeded to Sitio 14, Sta. Rita, Capas, Tarlac.
o Upon reaching the place, they arrested Mallari and told him to
remain stationary.
o Thereupon, the arresting officers searched him and found a
homemade gun (paltik) with one M-16 live ammunition
After investigation, Mallari was charged with the crime of Illegal
Possession of Firearms and Ammunition
o RTC: convicted for the crime (IPFA) beyond reasonable doubt. He
appealed.
CA: Affirmed RTCs decision in toto. Hence, the petition.
Mallari contended that even assuming that the handgun and ammunition
had in fact been found in his possession, the prosecution failed to prove
that he had no license therefor and absent this essential element of
the crime of illegal possession of firearms, it was manifest error for the
Court of Appeals to uphold his conviction.
Contention of the prosecution: Since a paltik is a homemade gun and is
illegally manufactured as recognized in People vs, Fajardo, this kind of
gun cannot be issued a license or permit, it is no longer necessary to
prove that it is unlicensed.
o Important to note: Mallari's arrest was lawful, the search and
seizure made incidental thereto is likewise valid, albeit conducted
without a warrant.

Issue:
W/n the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving that
Mallari did not have the requisite license for the firearm and ammunition found in
his possession.

Held:
Yes, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving that Mallari
did not have the requisite license for the firearm and ammunition.
In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution has the
burden of proving the elements thereof, viz: (a) the existence of the
subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed
it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess the same.
The latter is a negative fact which 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.
In the case at bench, the testimony of a representative of, or a certification
from the PNP (FEU) that Mallari was not a licensee of the said firearm
would have sufficed for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the second element of the crime of illegal possession. The absence of the
foregoing is fatal to the prosecution's case and renders petitioner's
conviction erroneous. (The allegation of the prosecution must be
substantiated by other evidence such as proving if Mallari is a licensee of
the said paltik)
SC: Mallari is ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.

1. PEOPLE V. SALVERON - FRANCISCO

Note: I focused on Henry as a witness under this section in relation to the right
against self-incrimination. Gregorio is the star witness in the case, however, his
rights and obligations as a witness in relation to right against self-incrimination
was not mentioned/discussed herein.
Just in case Atty. D will ask about Gregorio
The fact that Gregorio was not in the list of witnesses that was attached to
the information was satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. At any rate, the
omission did not disqualify Gregorio from testifying later because, as we said in
People v. Pacabes: held that the prosecution is allowed to call witnesses other
than those named in the complaint and information.
Doctrine:
Right against self-incrimination; Paraffin test was not violative of the
accused-appellants right against self-incrimination as it involved only an
examination of a part of his body.
Antecedent of this case:
May 22, 1981, when Gloria de Felipe was allegedly robbed and raped by
Raul Salveron, Dalida, Dumangas and several other unidentified persons.

During the trial in 1982, Raul Salveron was shot to death inside a bus by a
passenger.
Few weeks later, Dalida was killed in his house under mysterious
circumstances that have yet to be unraveled.
Dumangas was luckier: he too was attacked with apparent intent to kill but
survived to accuse his attackers.
o Attackers according to Dumangas were Rosibal de Felipe (husband
of raped Gloria), Billones, and Vito and eventually charged with
frustrated homicide.

Facts:

During the pendency of the case of Rosibal, Billones, and Vito, Rosibal
was killed by Henry Salveron (son of the Raul Salveron) on March 26.
o An information of Murder was filed against Henry and Sadava, --->
THIS IS NOW THE CASE BEING REVIEWED BEFORE THE SC
Prosecution presented Victoriano Gregorio as its star witness.
o He declared that at about 6 PM of March 26, he went to see
Rosibal at his house but he was not there.
o On his way back, Gregorio met Henry and Sadava at the foot of the
bridge in asked them what they were doing there. Henry said they
were waiting for somebody.
o Gregorio proceeded on his way and, halfway through the bridge,
met Rosibal.
o Gregorio had reached the other end of the bridge when he heard
gunshots.
He ran for fear of his life but after a while stopped and
looked back, in time to see Henry standing at the bridge with
a long firearm.
Gregorio then sped back to Rosibals house, but by another
route, to inform Gloria that her husband had been shot.
o Rosibal was already dead when Gloria reached him.
Henry was subjected to paraffin test.
o (+) nitrates burn on Henrys hands.
RTC: Acquitted Sadava (lack of evidence). Henry found guilty as charged.
Issue:
W/n the paraffin test violated Henrys right against self-incrimination.
Held:

No.
The nitrate burns on Salverons hands only affirmed that conclusion. The
claim that he had gone hunting was too pat for the trial judge, who
understandably felt that the story had been concocted to explain the
nitrate burns.
The paraffin test did not violate the appellants right against selfincrimination as it involved only an examination of a part of his body. As
Justice Holmes said in Holt v. United States: [T]he prohibition of

compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is a

prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when
it may be material.
SC: Decision modified, from Murder to Homicide (No qualifying circumstance)