People v. Elesterio; Fe Cruz v. Ex-Judge Enrique Agana (Digest)

Facts: After a brief pursuit operation, policemen found a .32 caliber revolver and two rounds of live ammunition in the person of Ricardo Elesterio. They also recovered the holster Elesterio dropped while attempting to escape. The Assistant City Fiscal filed an information against him in the Court of First Instance of Pasay City for violating General Order No. 6 in relation to Presidential Decree No. 9.

Elesterio pleaded not guilty during arraignment. During the trial on 14 August 1981, Patrolman Nepomuceno narrated the arrest and search while Elesterio testified that the gun was passed to him by one Ray Arong minutes before the patrol car passed by. Judge Agana asked if the defense had any more witness. The defense counsel said other witness would corroborate the testimony that Elesterio had earlier gone to several discotheques but the judge said such would only be cumulative evidence. The defense rested their case. Judge Agana then dictated his decision in open court finding the accused guilty and sentencing him to life imprisonment. Elesterio appealed.

Elesterio, after being committed in Bilibid prison, was able to escape on October 1981. He was recaptured on March 1983. Fe Cruz, his aunt, filed a petition for habeas corpus. The SC dismissed the habeas corpus case.

ISSUE: Whether the trial court erred when it 1) dispensed with other testimonies, 2) concluding the case in one sitting, 3) dictated the decision in open court immediately after trial?

Held:

1) No. Judge Agana had the right to control the proceedings and to bar unnecessary testimony that are merely intended to delay the case.

2) No. If all the evidence needed by both parties could be presented in one single session, there is no reason why any resetting could be made.

3) Yes. Judge Agana was exceptionally careless, if not deliberately high-handed. It seemed that he had prejudged the case and had a prepared decision even before the submission of the case. What is worse is that the decision is wrong. Elesterio cannot be convicted of violating General Order No. 6 in rel. to PD No. 9 because the second element (motive for carrying firearm is in furtherance of rebellion, subversion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos or public disorder) is not alleged at all. All that is alleged is that Elesterio possessed an unlicensed firearm with two live bullets outside his residence. It is a wonder that Judge Agana did not see this very obvious omission. Perhaps he chose not to see it.

However, Elesterio is not entirely guiltless. He can be convicted for illegal possession of firearms under the provision of Section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code. Under this provision, mere possession of an unlicensed firearm is malum prohibitum and is punishable regardless of lack of criminal intent or proof of the ownership of the firearm by another person.