View full case

PEOPLE v. BASILIO DAMASO

FACTS:

In the first case, the accused-appellant, Basilio Damaso, was charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 in connection with the crime of subversion. The information was amended to exclude other persons except the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua. Damaso filed a petition with assigned errors, claiming that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and in convicting him without proving the qualifying circumstances of subversion.

Prior to the filing of the information, Lt. Candido Quijardo and his companions apprehended several individuals who revealed the presence of an underground safehouse. They conducted a raid and found subversive documents, firearms, and other items. They also located the new house rented by the accused-appellant, wherein they found radio sets, pamphlets, and other items.

In the second case, the accused-appellant, Bernie Mendoza, was charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and violation of the Anti-Subversion Law. Authorities received information about a house used for subversive activities and conducted a search warrant operation. Subversive materials, a rifle, bullets, and other items were found in one of the rooms. The accused-appellant was identified as the lessee of the house and the owner of the confiscated items. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified to this fact, but their testimonies lacked personal knowledge and were hearsay. The defense did not object to the admission of these testimonies, but hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given probative value.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the testimonies are admissible despite being hearsay.

  2. Whether the failure to present witnesses who can identify the appellant as the lessee and owner of the subversive items affects the credibility of the hearsay statements.

  3. Whether the search conducted without a warrant is valid.

  4. Whether the discrepancy in the serial number of the gun found on the premises of the accused-appellant weakens the case against him.

  5. Whether the crime of subversion absorbs the crime of illegal possession of a firearm when it is in furtherance of or incident to or in connection with the crime of subversion.

  6. Whether or not the accused-appellant can be convicted of illegal possession of firearms in connection with the crime of subversion.

RULING:

  1. The testimonies are admissible as evidence but they have no probative value since they are hearsay. Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, cannot be given credence.

  2. The failure to present witnesses who can identify the appellant as the lessee and owner of the subversive items renders the hearsay statements insufficient evidence to convict the appellant.

  3. The search conducted without a warrant is illegal. The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is not absolute, but in this case, none of the exceptions that would make a warrantless search valid are present.

  4. The discrepancy in the serial number of the gun found weakens the case against the accused-appellant. Since the gun described in the amended information differs from the gun presented at the trial, the corpus delicti has not been fully established. The prosecution failed to prove the existence of the firearm as described in the amended information, as well as the fact that the accused did not have the corresponding license for it.

  5. The crime of subversion does not absorb the crime of illegal possession of a firearm. Subversion and rebellion are distinct crimes with different elements. Mere membership in a subversive organization is sufficient for the crime of subversion, while rebellion requires a public uprising and taking up of arms against the government. While subversion may involve force and violence, it can also include other forms of subversive acts that do not require the use of arms. Therefore, the accused-appellant cannot argue that the subversion charge should have preempted the charge for illegal possession of a firearm.

  6. The court reversed the decision appealed from and acquitted the accused-appellant. The court held that the evidence presented was too weak to convict the accused of the charge of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion. Thus, the accused-appellant was acquitted on reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value.

  • Failure to object to incompetent evidence does not give it any probative value.

  • The lack of objection may render incompetent evidence admissible, but admissibility should not be equated with the weight of evidence.

  • The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal one and cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or someone expressly authorized to do so on their behalf.

  • The authorities' intrusion into a dwelling without the owner's consent or valid legal basis is illegal.

  • The power to search and seize should be exercised without violating the constitutional rights of citizens, for no statute's enforcement justifies indifference to the basic principles of government.

  • In crimes of illegal possession of firearms, the prosecution has the burden to prove the existence of the firearm and that the accused did not have the corresponding license for it.

  • The corpus delicti, or the substance of the crime, must be fully established for the prosecution's case to stand.

  • Subversion and rebellion are distinct crimes with different elements. Membership in a subversive organization is sufficient for subversion, while rebellion requires a public uprising and taking up of arms against the government.

  • The court upheld the validity of the charge under the third paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. 1866, which provides for the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition qualified by subversion.

  • The court emphasized that the legislature has the power to enact laws and the wisdom of the legislature is not something that the court can inquire into.

  • The court clarified that in cases where an accused is charged with illegal possession of firearms qualified by subversion, the rulings in previous cases, such as Hernandez, Geronimo, and Rodriguez, do not find application.

  • In criminal cases, the state has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence presented is weak and leaves doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the accused must be acquitted.