Constructive culpability

In the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions, is it necessary to prove actual possession by the accused? This is the question resolved in this case of Al Mosal and five of his cohorts, all Muslims staying in a compound.

After repeated surveillance, the police applied for a search warrant with the RTC for the search and seizure of certain items in an apartment located in said compound occupied by Al Mosal and his group. Armed with the said warrant, the police searched the said apartment and found various firearms, ammunitions, explosives and other incendiary devices described with specificity in the warrant issued. So Al and his group were charged with illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives pursuant to PD 1866.

Al Mosal et al. however contended, that they could not be charged with violation of PD 1866 because the seized items were not taken actually from their possession.

Were they correct?

No.

Actual possession of firearms and ammunitions is not an indispensable element for prosecution under PD 1866. In People vs. Dela Rosa, 284 SCRA 158,168-169(1988), it has already been clarified that the kind of possession punishable under PD 1866 is one where the accused possessed a firearm either physically or constructively with animus possidendi or intent to possess said firearm. Animus possidendi is a state of the mind. As such what goes on in the mind of an accused, as his real intent, could be determined solely based on his prior and simultaneous acts and the surrounding circumstances explaining how the subject firearm came to his possession. These are matters to be proven during the trial of the criminal charge (Al Ghoul et al. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. 126859 September 4, 2001).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]