Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SC-G.R. CR No. 123456

(CA. Case No. 112233
Court of Appeals, Manila)

For: Violation of Sec. 28(a) under R.A. 10591

KARL FREDERICK ALMASEN y PANGILINAN,

Petitioner,

- versus –

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

By:

ATTY. AILYN B. AÑANO

Counsel for the Petitioner
AÑANO & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
#027 Brgy. Hugo Perez, Trece Martires City, Cavite
Email Address: A&[email protected]
Contact Number: 0936-123-4567 | 0917 -891-0112

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Counsel for the Respondent
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City, Metro Manila, 1229
 SUBJECT INDEX

Page
I. NATURE OF THE PETITION 4
II. THE PARTIES 5
III. TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION 5
IV. GROUNDS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF
THE PETITION

1. THE COURT OF APPEALS

8
COMMITTED
GRAVE ERROR IN CONVICTING THE
PETITIONER.
V. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

I. THE STOP AND FRISK RULE IS 10

NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE.

II. THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME

OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF 14
FIREAMRS ARE NOT
SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED.

III.
THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO 16
PROVE THE PETITIONER’S GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
WARRANTS HIS ACQUITTAL.
VI. PRAYER 18
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION 19
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

LAW/AUTHORITIES CITED:

 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Court 4, 8

 Section 28(a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10591 4, 10

CASES CITED:

Page 2 of 20
Castil vs. People,
G.R. No. 253930, 15
July 13, 2022.

Daayata, et. al. vs. People,

G.R. No. 205745, 16
March 8, 2017.

Del Rosario vs. People,

G.R. No. 142295, 15
May 31, 2001.

Kumar vs. People,

G.R. No 247661, 8
June 15, 2020.

People v. Olarte, 14
G.R. No. 233209,
March 11, 2019.

Terry vs. Ohio,

392 U.S. 1 (1968). 10

Page 3 of 20
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

KARL FREDERICK ALMASEN

y PANGILINAN,
Petitioner,

- versus – S.C. G.R. NO.

123456
For: Petition for
Review
on Certiorari
(CA. G.R.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, No.
112333)
Respondent.

x ---------------------------------------- x.

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

PETITIONER, through counsel, and unto this Honorable

Supreme Court respectfully states that:

I. NATURE OF THE PETITION.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Section 1 and 2,
Rule 45 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Court1
seeking to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals for being
contrary to law which was promulgated on December 4, 2023,
received on December 11, 2023, by petitioner’s counsel of record.
Copy of the questioned Decision is hereto attached as Annex “A”
hereof;

Petitioner have has until January 5, 2023, within which to file the
instant petition in accordance with the rules and the corresponding
docket fees have already been paid.

1
A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC effective May 1, 2020.

Page 4 of 20
 II. THE PARTIES.

Petitioner, Karl Frederick P. Almasen, of legal age, single, and is

the accused in said Criminal Case No. 9876, Regional Trial Court
of Makati City and the Appellant of CA-G.R. No. 112233, Court of
Appeals of Manila. He is represented in the case by his counsel of
record, Atty. Ailyn B. Añano, with office address at #027 Brgy.
Hugo Perez, Trece Martires City, Cavite.

Respondent, People of the Philippines is the complainant in

Criminal Case No. 9876, Regional Trial Court of Makati City and
the Appellee of CA-G.R. No. 112233, Court of Appeals of Manila.
The People is represented by the Office of the Solicitor General,
which may be served with legal process at Amorsolo St., Legaspi
Village, Makati City, Metro Manila, 1229.

III. TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

On July 05, 2019, an Information was filed against petitioner,

Karl Frederick Almasen, charging him of Violation of Section
28(a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10591, to wit:

That on or about June 28, 2019, in the City of Makati,

Philippines, the said accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his
possession and under his custody and control one (1)
improvised shotgun, without first having secured the
necessary license from the proper authorities.

Contrary to law.2

On August 23, 2019, the petitioner was arraigned with the

assistance of the counsel de oficio Atty. Cary Agos, for the
foregoing charges. The Information was read in the language or
dialect known to him. He was further furnished with a copy of said
Information. Ppetitioner, having understood the charges he was
being arraigned for, entered a plea of NOT GUILTY.3

2
Information dated July 05, 2019.
3
Certificate of Arraignment dated august 23, 2019.

Page 5 of 20
 Thereafter, the trial commenced. On May 03, 2023, the RTC
rendered a Judgment4 finding him guilty of the foregoing charge,
to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds

accused Karl Frederick Almasen y Pangilinan
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense
charged and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty
of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day as
minimum to eight (8) years as maximum.

The firearm subject of the offense is hereby confiscated

in favor of the government to be disposed of in
accordance with the law.

SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the

Regional Trial Court on June 22, 2023. The Court of Appeals
received the Notice of Appeal on June 22, 2023. The petitioner
filed his Appellant’s Brief on July 12, 2023 and the respondent
filed his Appellee’s Brief on July 20, 2023.

On December 4, 2023, speaking through Associate Justice

Rafael A. Solano, the appellate courtthe Honorable Court of
Appeals rendered the assailed decision, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal

is DENIED. The Judgment dated May 3, 2023 of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 1, in
Criminal Cases No. 9876, is AFFIRMED in toto. The
Court finds appellant Karl Frederick Almasen y
Pangilinan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense charged and hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1)
day as minimum to eight (8) years as maximum.

SO ORDERED.

The assailed decision was received by petitioner through his

counsel on December 11, 2023.

Hence, this petition is filed on time.

4
A copy of which is attached herein as Annex “A.”

Page 6 of 20
Page 7 of 20
 IV. GROUNDS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE
PETITION

I. THE COURT OF
APPEALS
COMMITTED GRAVE
ERROR IN
CONVICTING THE
PETITIONER.

The Court, in a long line of cases has established that the proper
remedy in case the Court of Appeals renders a judgment or final
order denying an accused’s appeal shall be a Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45. This is consistent with Section 1 of
the said rule and mandates that purely questions of law may be the
grounds therefor.
In its decision on the case of Kumar vs. People,5 it expounded on
the meaning of questions of law as basis for invoking its power to
review cases decided by the Court of Appeals, to wit:
Thus, to say that the questions raised in a Rule 45
Petition must be of such substance as to warrant
consideration is to say that judicial review shall proceed
"only when there are special and
important reasons." The use of the conjunctive
"and" vis-à-vis the adjectives "special" and "important"
means that the reasons invoked for review must be of
distinctly significant consequence and value. Rule 45,
Section 6 (a) and (b) illustrate the gravity of reasons
which would move this Court to act:
(a) When the court a quo has decided a
question of substance, not theretofore
determined by the Supreme Court, or has
decided it in a way probably not in accord
with law or with the applicable decisions of
the Supreme Court; or
(b) When the court a quo has so far departed
from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings, or so far sanctioned such

5
Kumar vs. People, G.R. No 247661, June 15, 2020.

Page 8 of 20
 departure by a lower court, as to call for an
exercise of the power of supervision.
In the present case, the assailed decision is one rendered by the
Court of Appeals in its appellate jurisdiction and the issue raised
by the petitioner is a purely question of law thus the procedural
requirements of the Court have been complied with. Furthermore,
the appellate court has committed grave error in upholding the
conviction of the petitioner and in ruling that there was a valid
search and seizure conducted pursuant to the “stop and frisk” rule.
To allow for the conviction of the petitioner when there are patent
irregularities to his arrest would be tantamount to a violation of his
constitutionally enshrined rights against unreasonable search and
seizure. Therefore, the invocation of the petitioner of the remedy
under this rule is proper as he risks the forfeiture of his life and
liberty should the error committed by the appellate court
remainsremain.
This is to say, the Court does not preclude the examination of facts
in petitions for review under Rule 45 especially in criminal cases.
However, to invoke such examination, it must be established that it
is in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court
overlooked material and relevant matters . . . this Court will re-
calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the [lower courts].6
In the present case, the inconsistencies in the statements of the
arresting officers poses a great danger to the rights of the petitioner
as they are the basis of the appellate court for his conviction. And
as a rule, proof beyond reasonable doubt charges the prosecution
with the immense responsibility of establishing moral certainty.
The prosecution's case must rise on its own merits, not merely on
relative strength as against that of the defense. Should the
prosecution fail to discharge its burden, acquittal must follow as a
matter of course.7

6
Daayata vs. People, G.R. No. 205745, March 8, 2017.
7
Daayata vs. People, supra.

Page 9 of 20
 V. ARGUMENTS and DISCUSSIONS.

I. THE STOP AND

FRISK RULE IS NOT
APPLICABLE IN THIS
CASE.

The appellate courtscourt's reliance inon the “stop and frisk”

rule as a basis for the validity of the search conducted upon the
person of the petitioner is misplaced. The circumstances which
transpired bellies the claim of the police officer that there was a
valid search conducted which resulted intoin the discovery of the
subject firearm – the sumpak8 which is the corpus delicti of the
offense punishable under Republic Act No. 10591 for which the
petitioner was convicted for..

The test for the validity of the Terry9 doctrine lies on whether a
reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted
in the belief that his safety or that of the others was in danger.
Jurisprudence has established that for there to be valid stop and
frisk the following conditions must be met:

1. There must be specific and articulable facts which, taken

together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the
intrusion.
2. The officer must identify himself and make reasonable
inquiries.
3. The “frisk” is permitted to search for weapons for the
protection of the police officer, where he has reason to
believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous
individual, regardless of probable cause for a crime.
4. The scope of the search is limited to the outer surface of the
subject’s clothing.

In the assailed decision, the appellate court applied the doctrine

on the basis ofbased on the reasonable belief of PO1 Santillan and
his other companions that the petitioner was the suspected riding-
in-tandem gunmen in their area of responsibility referred to by an
anonymous tip. The portion of the decision as quoted are to wit:

8
Prosecution Exhibit “KFA-1”.
9
Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Page 10 of 20
 Thus, acting on a limited set of information based on
the totality of the circumstances that: (1) the policemen
received a tip of the presence of riding-in-tandem
gunmen in their area of responsibility; (2) appellant and
his companion failed to wear a helmet, but instead wore
masks; (3) appellant’s suspicious bulge in his upper
garment; (4) appellant’s act of glancing suspiciously at
an old woman who was walking on the street; and (5)
failure to stop upon being flagged down by the police,
the arresting officers had a well-founded belief that a
criminal activity may be afoot and had a right to frisk
appellant for any dangerous weapons that may be
concealed in his person.

From this, it can be gleaned upon that the basis of the

appellate court’s contention and justification of the validity of
the stop and frisk conducted on the person of the petitioner
was that: (1) he was suspected to be the riding-in-tandem
gunmen referred to by a mere tip and (2) he and his
companion Austria was fleeing from the police officers hence
they suspected that there was criminal activity afoot. The
irregularities on this basis cited by the court are contrary to
the established jurisprudence.

The Court has held that searches and arrests made on

the basis of “tip” or “reliable information” alone cannot
sufficiently be considered to justify an otherwise
unreasonable search and seizure. Furthermore, in stop and
frisk, the law requires that probable cause must be
established and further, the immediacy of the facts and
circumstances constituting such probable cause on the part of
the police officer. This is because the premise of conducting
the protective pat down or the frisking of the person is the
probability that sucha person is dangerous and armed.

Based on the accounts of PO1 Santillan, the petitioner

and his companion were on board a motorcycle when they
noticed that they were not wearing a helmet. When they
flagged them down, the petitioner sped away and it was then
that they noticed the bulging object on the right side of the
upper garment of the driver (petitioner).10 This runs contrary
10
TSN. PO1 Santi Santillan. Direct Examination, page 2.

Page 11 of 20
to his statement during continuance of the cross examination
that the petitioner was suspiciously looking at an old woman
and they were about 7 meters behind from the petitioner. 11
These bellies the facts appreciated by the appellate court that
the petitioner and his companion were acting suspicious and
are likely toected to be the riding-in-tandem gunmen referred
to by the based on an anonymous tip. Even so, it runs
contrary to human experience that in a chase down,
especially when the person being chased is constantly
stopping to check something out or on PO1 Santillan’s
account “pahinto-hinto”12 they would not be able to catch up
to them. PO1 Santillan stated that they were only able to
catch up to the petitioner when he and his companion stopped
at a gas station.

Moreover, if the statement of PO1 Santillan is to be

considered, the fact that a bulging object was noticed by
arresting officers while the petitioners sped away cannot be
the probable cause contemplated by law as basis for the stop
and frisk. The officers could not have known that the bulging
objects are improvised firearms or that from the moment they
approached the petitioner that there was suspicion of them
being dangerous men. So, when they later chased them down
to the gasoline station where the petitioner stopped, there was
no basis for them ordering him and his companion to lift his
shirt up and the conduct of the stop and frisk. Additionally,
the act of fleeing cannot be the basis of the police officers for
the supposed probable cause as at the time the incident
occurred, PO1 Santillan and his companions were in civilian
attire13 and therefore, the petitioner could not have known
that they were police officers who were trying to flag them
down. Similarly, they could have been suspected to be
anyone suspicious especially that there were seven of them in
motorcycle trying to stop two persons in a dark corner. In
human experience, if this is the case, the petitioner and his
companion is justified in trying to evade these seemingly
suspicious persons trying to stop them.

In sum, the stop and frisk rule cannot stand in this case
as the requirements of the law for there validity were not
sufficiently established. As in this case, to validate a search
11
TSN. PO1 Santi Santillan. Cross Examination, page 6.
12
TSN. PO1 Santi Santillan, supra.
13
TSN. PO1 Santi Santillan, supra.

Page 12 of 20
and seizure, there must be a reasonable belief that the
petitioner has committed an offense, and the items to be
seized are connected to that offense, or that there was danger
to the life of the police officer and those around him. If it is
established that the law enforcement lacked sufficient
probable cause, as in this case, the entire foundation of the
search and seizure cannot stand.

Page 13 of 20
II. THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL
POSSESSION OF FIREAMRS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY
ESTABLISHED.

The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime

of illegal possession of firearms, which include explosives,
ammunitions or incendiary devices, are: (a) the existence of
subject firearm, and (b) the fact that the accused who
possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding
license for it. Associated with the essential elements of the crime
is the term "corpus delicti,” which means the "body or substance
of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the
crime has been actually committed." Its elements are: (a) that a
certain result has been proved (e.g., a man has died); and (b) that
some person is criminally responsible for the act.

In the crime of illegal possession of firearms, the corpus

delicti is the accused's lack of license or permit to possess or
carry the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited by law. To
establish the corpus delicti, the prosecution has the burden of
proving that the firearm exists and that the accused who owned
or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or
permit to possess or carry the same. However, even if the
existence of the firearm must be established, the firearm itself need
not be presented as evidence for it may be established by
testimony, even without the presentation of the said firearm. 14

In this case, the basis for the existence of the illegal firearm is
the sole testimony of PO1 Santillan and the lack of license or
permit to possess or carry the same is the certification issued by the
PNP Firearms and Explosives Office.15

As a rule, the existence of the certificate issued by the PNP

Firearms and Explosives Office is sufficient to establish the second
element of the offense that the accused lacks the requisite license
or permit to possess or carry the subject firearm. However, the
same cannot stand when there is question as to its validity and
credibility. The Court ruled that burden of proving that the accused
does not possess the requisite license rests on the prosecution. If
there were questions as to its validity as in this case, the
prosecution was not confined to the certification to prove the
elements of the crime. In fact, the CourCourt ruled in the case of
14
People v. Olarte y Namuag, G.R. No. 233209, [March 11, 2019]
15
Decision. People vs. Almasen dated December 4, 2023, page 5 and 6.

Page 14 of 20
Castil vs. People16 that currently as it stands, the acceptable ways
of proving the second element of lack of license in Illegal
Possession of Firearms cases are:

(a) the certification issued by the Firearms and

Explosives Office of the PNP;
(b) the testimony of a representative from the Firearms
and Explosives Office of the PNP; or
(c) judicial admission of the accused or counsel.
Of course, it is not limited to the foregoing and the
element may be proved through other ways as long as
the proof offered overcomes reasonable doubt.

In this case, the appellate court cannot brush off the belated
submission of the prosecution as mere immaterial error as the
requirement of the law requires that the at the moment of the
seizure, the possession was considered illegal such that the license
or permit of the person in possession thereof areis expired or
inexistent. Other than the questioned certification, there was no
other proof presented by the prosecution. The lack of a genuine
and credible certification coupled with the irregular seizure of the
subject firearm poses doubt as to the foundation of the
prosecution’s conviction. And it is a paramount rule that
the absence or irregularity of search and seizure of the subject
firearm coupled with the defective license and legal authority
constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal
possession of firearm and every ingredient or essential
element of an offense must be shown by the prosecution by proof
beyond reasonable doubt.17

16
G.R. No. 253930, July 13, 2022.
17
Del Rosario y Nicolas vs. People, G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001.

Page 15 of 20
III. THE PROSECUTION’S
FAILURE TO PROVE THE
PETITIONER’S GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT WARRANTS HIS
ACQUITTAL.

The above-discussed errors and misapprehension of facts and

pieces of evidence suggest that the prosecution failed to establish
and prove beyond reasonable doubt the petitioner’s guilt.

In the case of Daayata, et. al. vs People18, the Court

reiterated the already established rule on an accused guilt beyond
reasonable, which states:

Conviction in criminal actions demands proof beyond

reasonable doubt. Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence states:

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a

criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a
degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error,
produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

While not impelling such a degree of proof as to

establish absolutely impervious certainty, the quantum
of proof required in criminal cases nevertheless
charges the prosecution with the immense
responsibility of establishing moral certainty, a
certainty that ultimately appeals to a person's very
conscience. While indeed imbued with a sense of
altruism, this imperative is borne, not by a mere
abstraction, but by constitutional necessity:

This rule places upon the prosecution the task of

establishing the guilt of an accused, relying on the
strength of its own evidence, and not banking on the
18
Daayata, et. al. vs. People, G.R. No. 205745, March 8, 2017.

Page 16 of 20
 weakness of the defense of an accused. Requiring proof
beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due
process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in the
right of an accused to be "presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved." "Undoubtedly, it is the
constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such
burden upon the prosecution." Should the prosecution
fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of
course, that an accused must be acquitted.

Following this well-entrenched rule, the prosecution’s failure

to establish and prove the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt warrants the latter’s acquittal.

Page 17 of 20
 VI. PRAYER.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that this instant petition be given
due course, and an Order be issued setting aside the questioned
Decision dated December 4, 2023 issued by the Court of Appeals
in C.A. -G.R. No. 112233.

Such other relief as may be deemed just and equitable under

the premises.

Cavite for Manila, December 29, 2023.

AÑANO & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Petitioner
#032 Brgy. Hugo Perez, Trece Martires City,
Cavite
Email Address: A&[email protected]
Contact Number: 0936-123-4567 | 0917 -891-
0112

By:

ATTY. AILYN B. AÑANO

PTR No. 0123456; 01/07/2020; Naic
IBP Lifetime No. 90296; 01/07/2020; Cavite
Chapter
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
MCLE Compliance No.: I-0000123; 01/07/2020

Copy Furnished:

COURT OF APPEALS OFFICE OF THE

SOLICITOR
Maria Orosa Street, Ermita, GENERAL
Manila, 1000 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi
Village, Makati City

Page 18 of 20
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING

I, KARL FREDERICK P. ALMASEN, of legal age,

Filipino citizen, and residents of f 9095 Paris St., Brgy. Anahaw,
Makati City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
the law, do hereby state and depose:

1. That I, as the Petitioner for the above-entitled Petition;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition

for Review on Certiorari and have read the allegations
contained therein;

3. That the allegations in the said Petition for Review on

Certiorari are true and correct and of my own knowledge and
are based on true records;

4. That the pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary

delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and

5. That the factual allegations therein have evidentiary support

or, if specifically, so identified, will likewise have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery;

Page 19 of 20
 6. That I have not commenced nor instituted any action or
proceeding involving the same issues and the same causes of
action, with any court, tribunal, or agency of competent
jurisdiction; that to the best of my knowledge, no such action
or proceeding is pending before any of these courts or
tribunals;

7. And that, if I should learn thereafter that a similar action or

proceeding has been filed or pending before these courts or
tribunals, I undertake to report that fact to the Court within
five (5) days therefrom;

8. I executed this verification/certification to attest the truth of

the foregoing and to comply with the provisions of Adm.
Circular No. 04-94 of the Honorable Supreme Court.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this 27th day of December 2023 in the City of Trece Martires,
Cavite.

(Sgd.) KARL FREDERICK P. ALMASEN

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 27th of

December 2023 in the City of Trece Martires, Cavite.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No.: ____;
Page No.: ____;
Book No.: ____;
Series of 2023.

Note: Please see comments above.

Page 20 of 20
Grade: 90

Page 21 of 20