Dizon v. CA

Facts:

around 7:00 in the evening on May 11, 1990, patrolmen Ernesto Marquez and Alfredo Opriasa, of the Western Police District followed a group of rallyist, numbering about 20 to 25, that marched along Recto Avenue then turned left on Nicanor Reyes Street (formerly Morayta Street) and proceeded to España Street. The group was protesting the coming exploratory talks between the governments of the Philippines and the United States concerning the extension of the Military Bases Agreement which was due to expire on September 16, 1991. Upon reaching the intersection of España and A. Maceda Streets, the demonstrators stopped to stage a noise barrage.

Opriasa got hold of accused-appellant who was left behind while trying to light one of the tires on the street. Opriasa frisked accused-appellant and confiscated from him a pillbox. Pfc. Cacacete, a bomb specialist, found it positive for explosive.

Appellant’s alibi: He was a student at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines and a member of the League of Filipino Students, one of the largest student-based activist groups in the country.

The trial court found Dizon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866. CA affirmed the decision.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion

Held:

No. Although the penalty should be modified in view of the amendment to PD No. 1866.

The device failed to explode during the July 16, 1990 killer earthquake notwithstanding that Dequitos cabinet which contained the device fell sideways on a table. However, as Marilyn Dequito explained:

[T]he pillbox was not really totally sealed. What I placed in my locker [is an] explosive that w[as] not totally sealed. It [was] opened already. In fact, moisture has already been absorb[ed] by that mixture of substances and I dont thin[k] it will explode and there will be no explosion anymore.But if the pillbox is totally sealed, when you throw it, pressure will be built inside so when you throw it the pressure will be released. That is the time that there will be an explosion when the pressure will be released.

Both the trial court and the CA correctly found accused-appellant guilty of illegal possession of pillbox as defined and punished in 3 of P.D. No. 1866. However, the penalty imposed on accused-appellant must be modified in view of Republic Act No. 8294.