Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CR No. 46767

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:

Lampas Peralta, F., Chairperson

- versus - Santos, R.A.M., and
Bordios, L.R., JJ.:

EDUARDO POJEDA Promulgated:

SUEÑA,
Accused-Appellant. April 18, 2023
x==============================================x

DECISION

Santos, J.

On appeal before this Court is the Judgment1 dated 27 May

2021 of the Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna, Branch 28,
(trial court) for Criminal Case No. SC-24159 finding accused-
appellant Eduardo Pojeda Sueña (accused-appellant) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) Resolution No. 10446 in relation to Section 32 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7166 and Section 261(q) of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code). The dispositive portion of the
assailed Judgment reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the

accused EDUARDO POJEDA SUEÑA GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of COMELEC Resolution
No. 10446, issued by the COMELEC pursuant to the power
vested in it by The Omnibus Election Code, and he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an

1 Record, pp. 91-95, penned by then Presiding Judge Iluminado M. Dela Peña.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 2

indeterminate term of one (1) year as minimum to two (2) years

as maximum.

SO ORDERED.2 (Italics in original)

The Antecedents

Accused-appellant was charged with violation of COMELEC

Resolution No. 10446 in relation to Section 32 of R.A. No. 7166 and
Section 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code. The accusatory
portion of the Information3 reads:

That on or about May 17, 2019, in the Municipality of Sta.

Cruz, Province of Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, during the 2019
election period (January 13, 2019 up to June 12, 2019), did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess, bear
and carry in his person one (1) deadly weapon (knife), in a street
of Brgy. Santissima Cruz, without first securing any
exemption/permit from the Commission on Elections to
possess, bear and carry the same and the said deadly weapon
is not necessary to the occupation of the possessor or is not used
as a tool for legitimate activity.

CONTRARY TO LAW. xxx4 (Emphasis in the original)

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded “Not

Guilty.” 5 At the pre-trial conference, it was stipulated that the
incident happened on 17 May 2019, covered by the 2019 election
period of 13 January 2019 up to June 12, 2019.6

The facts, as established by the trial court, are as follows:

xxx PCMSgt. Gentoleo and PAT Trillana both claimed

that on May 17, 2019, around 8:30 o’clock in the evening, the
Santa Cruz Municipal Police Station received a telephone call
regarding an incident threatening a gasoline boy with a gun in
a gasoline station beside UNITOP situated in Brgy. Santissima

2 Id., at 95.
3 Id., at 2.
4 Ibid.
5 Certificate of Arraignment, Id., at 41.
6 Id., at 50.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 3

Cruz, Santa Cruz, Laguna. PCMSgt. Gentoleo and PAT Trillana

immediately proceeded to the gasoline station wherein
PCMSgt. Gentoleo talked to a gasoline boy, Orlando Dataylo,
who informed him that a man who refused to pay the gasoline
loaded at his vehicle threatened him by showing a high-
powered gun tucked at his waist. Dataylo described the man to
be wearing a white shirt and pair of shorts, and have a large
physique, bearded and of medium height. Dataylo likewise
described the man to be riding in a small motorcycle with small
wheels which emits smoke and creates loud noise when driven.
Thereafter, PCMSgt. Gentoleo and PAT Trillana left the
gasoline station and drove within Brgy. Santissima Cruz
towards the direction of Sitio Asana Uno. A few moments after,
they saw a person who fits the description provided by Dataylo.
They called the person’s attention and the latter pulled over the
side of the road. PCMSgt. Gentoleo approached the person who
introduced himself to be Eduardo Pojeda Sueña, the herein
accused. The accused voluntarily took out from his waist a
pellet gun and a knife placed in a rubber holster. PCMSgt.
Gentoleo and PAT Trillana brought the accused to the gasoline
station where his identity and the gun he displayed earlier were
confirmed by Dataylo. They arrested the accused and brought
him to the hospital for a medical check-up then to the police
station where the pellet gun and the knife were respectively
marked as “ES-1” and “ES-2”.

Further, PCMSgt. Gentoleo testified that when they

travelled from the gasoline station to the police station, the gun
remained in his custody while the knife remained in the
custody of PAT Trillana. Upon arrival at the police station,
PCMSgt. Gentoleo marked the gun and PAT Trillana marked
the knife, after which, the said items were turned over to the
then duty investigator, then to the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor (OPP) when the accused underwent inquest
proceedings. PCMSgt. Gentoleo added that the accused was
arrested during the election period.

PAT Trillana corroborated the testimony of PCMSgt.

Gentoleo on the matter pertaining to the marking of the items
seized from the accused and the period when the accused was
apprehended.

PCMSgt. Gentoleo and PAT Trillana both identified the

accused, as well as the knife and gun seized from his possession.
They likewise identified the photographs depicting the gun, the
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 4

knife and the motorcycle, among others, and Police Blotter No.
19-01057.

The defense, on the other hand, presented the accused,

Rosauro Antonio and Melmar Conde.

The accused admitted that on the night he was

apprehended, he was in possession of a knife which he used for
work, being then a caretaker and a gardener of a bank.

Antonio, whose second wife is the mother-in-law of the

accused, testified that the accused was an all-around worker,
who weeds, cleans, paints and a laborer in a construction site.
In the performance of his many works, he uses a knife, which
he usually brings for planting.

Conde testified that the accused used to be the caretaker

in a foreclosed property of Banco de Oro. As a caretaker, the
accused maintained the property by weeding and cleaning the
area using a knife which he usually brings.

xxx7

The trial court promulgated the assailed Judgment dated 27

May 2021 on the same date.

In his Motion for Reconsideration 8 before the trial court,

accused-appellant argues that the trial court erred in not
appreciating the fact that the subject knife was used by the accused
in the pursuit of his occupation.9

The Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the trial court in

a Resolution10 dated 26 October 2021. The trial court ruled that even
assuming that the subject knife was used by the accused-appellant
in the pursuit of his profession, he was still required to secure
authority from the COMELEC to possess the same.11

7 Id., at 91-93.
8 Id., at 96-101, sans Annexes.
9 Id., at 99.
10 Id., at 111-114.
11 Id., at 112.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 5

Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal12 on 15

November 2021 which was given due course by the trial court in
an Order13 dated 16 November 2021.

In compliance with the Notice to File Brief 14 issued by the

Court, accused-appellant filed his Accused-Appellant’s Brief 15 and
plaintiff-appellee filed its Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee.16

Verification with the Court’s Case Management Information

System (CMIS) on 18 April 2023 shows that as of said date, no Reply
has been filed by accused-appellant. Hence, he is deemed to have
waived the filing of the same.

In view of the foregoing, the case is now deemed submitted

for decision.

Assignment of Error

Accused-appellant’s assignment of error states:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-

GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATION
OF COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 10446 AND IN
SENTENCING HIM TO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF
IMPRISONMENT FOR AN INDETERMINATE TERM [OF]
ONE (1) YEAR AS MINIMUM TO TWO (2) YEARS AS
MAXIMUM.17

This Court’s Ruling

The Court denies the appeal.

An appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for

review, and the appellate court has the duty to correct, cite, and

12 Id., at 115.
13 Id., at 116.
14 Rollo, p. 14.
15 Id., at 23-31, sans Annexes.
16 Id., at 56-73.
17 Id., at 27-28.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 6

appreciate errors in the appealed judgment, whether or not

assigned or unassigned.18 The appeal confers the appellate court
full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to
examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the
penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.19

Accused-appellant was charged with violation of COMELEC

Resolution No. 10446 in relation to Section 32 of R.A. No. 7166 and
Section 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code.

Article 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Section 261. Prohibited Acts. – The following shall be

guilty of an election offense:

xxx

q. Carrying firearms outside residence or place of

business. – Any person who, although possessing a permit to
carry firearms, carries any firearms outside his residence or
place of business during the election period, unless authorized
in writing by the Commission: Provided, That a motor vehicle,
water or air craft shall not be considered a residence or place of
business or extension hereof.

This prohibition shall not apply to cashiers and

disbursing officers while in the performance of their duties or
to persons who by nature of their official duties, profession,
business or occupation habitually carry large sums of money or
valuables.

xxx

Meanwhile, the carrying of deadly weapons is considered as

an election offense under a separate provision of Article 261 of the
Omnibus Election Code, viz:

Section 261. Prohibited Acts. – The following shall be

guilty of an election offense:

18 People v. Alon-alon, G.R. No. 237803, 27 November 2019.

19 Ibid.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 7

xxx

p. Deadly weapons. – Any person who carries any

deadly weapon in the polling place and within a radius of one
hundred meters thereof during the days and hours fixed by law
for the registration of voters in the polling place, voting,
counting of votes, or preparation of election returns. However,
in cases of affray, turmoil, or disorder, any peace officer or
public officer authorized by the Commission to supervise the
election is entitled to carry firearms or any other weapon for the
purpose of preserving order and enforcing the law.

xxx

Section 32 of R.A. No. 7166, amending the Omnibus Election

Code, provides:

Section 32. Who May Bear Firearms. – During the election

period, no person shall bear, carry or transport firearms or
other deadly weapons in public places, including any building,
street, park, private vehicle or public conveyance, even if
licensed to possess or carry the same, unless authorized in
writing by the Commission. The issuance of firearm licenses
shall be suspended during the election period.

xxx

On the other hand, COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 dated

21 November 2018 on the Rules and Regulations on: (1) the Ban on
Bearing, Carrying or Transporting of Firearms or Other Deadly
Weapons; and (2) the Employment, Availment or Engagement of
the Services of Security Personnel or Bodyguards During the
Election Period of the May 13, 2019 National and Local Elections,
pertinently provides:

Section 2. Prohibited Acts. – During the Election Period:

a. No person shall bear, carry or transport Firearms or

Deadly Weapons outside his residence or place of
business, and in all public places, including any building,
street, park, and in private vehicles or public
conveyances, even if he is licensed or authorized to
possess or to carry the same, unless authorized by the
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 8

Commission, through the CBFSP, in accordance with the

provisions of this Resolution;

xxx (Emphasis supplied)

However, COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 expressly

excludes from the coverage of the above-quoted prohibition the act
of bearing, carrying or transporting a bladed instrument which is
necessary to the occupation of the possessor or when it is used as a
tool for legitimate activity, thus:

Section 1. Definition of Terms. – xxx

l. Deadly Weapon includes bladed instruments, hand

grenades or other explosives, except pyrotechnics. Provided,
That, a bladed instrument is not covered by the prohibition
when possession of the bladed instrument is necessary to the
occupation of the possessor or when it is used as a tool for
legitimate activity.

xxx (Emphasis supplied)

In view of the above-quoted provision of the COMELEC

Resolution excluding from the coverage of the prohibition bladed
instruments which are necessary to the occupation of a possessor
or used as a tool for legitimate activity, the Information in this case
pertinently alleged that the deadly weapon (knife) subject of the
charge “is not necessary to the occupation of the possessor or is not
used as a tool for legitimate activity.”20

Thus, preliminarily, the Court deems it necessary to consider

the trial court’s ruling in its Resolution dated 26 October 2021 that
accused-appellant’s contention that the subject knife was used by
him in the pursuit of his occupation is unavailing inasmuch as he
has no authority from the COMELEC to possess the same.21 In so
ruling, the trial court implies that a person intending to carry a
bladed instrument which is necessary to his profession or
occupation still needs to secure an authority from the COMELEC
during the election period. The trial court’s basis for its ruling is

20 Record, p. 2.
21 Id., at 112-113.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 9

Section 6(L) of COMELEC Resolution No. 10446 which provides

that qualified individuals who by the nature of their official duties,
profession, business or occupation, such as but not limited to
cashiers, disbursing officers, among others, must still secure an
authority from the COMEEC to bear, carry or transport firearms or
other deadly weapons, which the accused-appellant failed to do.22

The Court disagrees with said ruling of the trial court. The
above quoted provisions are clear that a bladed instrument used as
a tool for one’s occupation is expressly exempted from the coverage
of the prohibition against bearing, carrying, or transporting it in a
public place or outside the residence or place of business of the
possessor during the election period. Thus, no COMELEC
authority granting an exemption is necessary for the purpose.

Having established that the possession of a bladed

instrument necessary to the occupation of the possessor or used as
a tool for legitimate activity is an express exemption to the
prohibition under the COMELEC Resolution, and thus a valid
defense, the question now before this Court is whether or not
accused-appellant was able to prove his defense that the subject
knife he carried outside his residence or place of business was
necessary to his occupation or used as a tool for a legitimate activity.

The Court rules in the negative.

In Sierra v. People,23 the Supreme Court succinctly explained

the burden of proof in criminal cases, viz:

Burden of proof, under Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules

on Evidence, refers to the duty of a party to present evidence
on the facts in issue in order to establish his or her claim or
defense. In a criminal case, the burden of proof to establish the
guilt of the accused falls upon the prosecution which has the
duty to prove all the essential ingredients of the crime. The
prosecution completes its case as soon as it has presented the
evidence it believes is sufficient to prove the required elements.
At this point, the burden of evidence shifts to the defense to

22 Id., at 114.
23 G.R. No. 182941, 3 July 2009.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 10

disprove what the prosecution has shown by evidence, or to

prove by evidence the circumstances showing that the accused
did not commit the crime charged or cannot otherwise be held
liable therefor. xxx

In this case, accused-appellant was convicted upon the trial

court’s finding that all of the following elements under Section 32
of R.A. No. 7166 were satisfied, namely: 1) the person is bearing,
carrying, or transporting a deadly weapon; 2) such possession
occurs during the election period; and 3) the deadly weapon is
carried in a public place or outside the possessor’s residence or
place of business.24

On the first element, prosecution witnesses, PCMSgt.

Gentoleo and Pat. Trillana, established that when they flagged
down accused-appellant, who was then riding his motorcycle, and
approached him, he took out a gun holsted in his waist and stated,
“pellet gun po ito,” and also took out from his back pocket a knife,
which is a deadly weapon, and handed it to Pat. Trillana. 25 The
second element was stipulated upon by the parties, i.e. that the
incident happened on 17 May 2019 which was during the 2019
election period. 26 On the third element, it was likewise
satisfactorily shown that the accused was carrying the knife in his
person while he was riding his motorcycle, from the gasoline
station and on the route to Sitio Asana Uno, Brgy. Santisima, Santa
Cruz, Laguna, 27 which are public places within the definition
provided under Section 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code and
Section 32 of R.A. No. 7166, which explicitly prohibits the carrying
or transporting of deadly weapons in public places, including any
building, street, park, private vehicle or public conveyance or
outside the possessor’s residence or place of business.

The circumstances of accused-appellant’s apprehension

reveals that his possession of the subject knife in a public place or
outside his residence or place of business was not incidental to his

24 Abenes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156320, 14 February 2007.

25 Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated 21 November 2019, p. 6-7; TSN dated 23
January 2020, p. 6-7; Exh. “B,” Record, pp. 6-7.
26 Record, p. 50.
27 Supra, note 25.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 11

occupation. The Sinumpaang Salaysay of Orlando Dataylo Moro

(Orlando), submitted by the prosecution as Exh. “A,” states that at
around 8:30 p.m. of 17 May 2019, he was manning a small gasoline
station when accused-appellant refused to pay for a liter of gas
loaded onto his motorcycle, threatening Orlando with a gun in a
holster on accused-appellant’s waist. 28 Thereafter, Orlando
reported the incident to the police.29 PCMSgt. Gentoleo and Pat.
Trillana responded to Orlando’s report, patrolled the area, and
eventually apprehended accused-appellant. PCMSgt. Gentoleo
testified thus:

xxx

Q: What was that result of you, patrolling the area?

A: Upon nearing Asana Uno, we saw a person matched the

description given to us. He was wearing white shirt and
he was using a loud motor cycle vehicle and we asked
him to park his motorcycle, sir.

Q: So after that, what happened next, Mr. Witness, if any?

A: Upon approaching the person, I asked him of his identity

and he stated that he is Eduardo Suena and he took out a
gun holsted in his waist and stated “pellet gun po ito”
and also took out from his back a knife and handed it to
Patrolman Trillana, sir.

Q: In short Mr. Witness, the accused was not frisked but he

voluntarily gave the pellet gun and the knife?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And after that, what happened next?

A: We brought him to the gasoline boy and the gasoline boy

confirmed that, that was the man who threatened him,
sir.

xxx30

28 Record, p. 5.
29 Ibid.
30 TSN dated 21 November 2019, pp. 6-7.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 12

The foregoing prosecution evidence proved the existence of

the three elements of the offense, thus proving the guilt of accused-
appellant for the offense charged. Seeking to be exempted from
liability, the burden of evidence has now shifted to accused-
appellant to refute the prosecution’s evidence and prove his
defense that he uses the confiscated knife as a tool in his occupation
by competent evidence.

In his appeal, accused-appellant avers that he was able to

clearly prove that the subject knife, which he carried in a public
place, is being used by him in the pursuit of his occupation as an
all-around worker, thus, he should be acquitted of the offense
charge.31

At trial, accused-appellant took the stand to testify as to his

occupation. Accused-appellant also presented two (2) witnesses,
namely: 1) Rosauro Antonio (Rosauro), and 2) Melmar Conde
(Melmar) to corroborate his testimony.

Accused-appellant’s testimony in this regard is as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
ATTY. CONSUNTO

Q: Are you the same Eduardo Pojeda Sueña, the accused in

this case?

A: Yes sir.

Q: You are accused of violation of the Omnibus Election

Code for possessing a knife, a deadly weapon, on May 17,
2018, at Santa Cruz, Laguna, what can you say to the
accusation against you?

A: I use that knife for my work sir.

Q: What is your work or occupation?

A: “All-around sir, sari-sari po.”

31 Rollo, p. 28.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 13

Q: What do you mean all-around worker specifically what

do you do for a living?

A: When I said all-around I meant that I can work as a

laborer, as a construction worker, as “mananabas” and
others sir.

Q: On May 17, 201[9], where have you been?

A: I worked as a caretaker and gardener of a bank sir.

Q: And what did you do on that day as caretaker of the

bank?

A: I cleaned and weeded and scrubbed the floor sir.

Q: And why were you in possession of a knife on that day?

A: Because I used that for my work as a caretaker in the bank

sir.32 (Underscoring in the original)

On the other hand, Rosauro’s testimony consists of the

following:

DIRECT-EXAMINATION
BY ATTY. CONSUNTO:

Q: Mr. Witness, do you know the accused in this case?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Why do you know him?

A: He is the son-in-law of my second wife, sir.

Q: For how long have you known the accused in this case?

A: I have known him for twenty (20) years, sir.

Q: How often do you see the accused?

A: I see him everyday, sir.

32 TSN dated 16 February 2021, pp. 2-3.

 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 14

Q: By the way, do you know what is the occupation of the

accused?
A: Yes, sir. All-around, sir.

Q: You mean all-around, specifically, what does he do for a

living?

A: For a living, “pag-gagamas,” cleaning and laborer in

construction site, sir.

Q: By the way, what is your occupation?

A: Mason laborer in construction, sir.

Q: Do you have occupation [sic] to be with the accused in the

pursuit of your occupation?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What is his participation when you are working together?

A: Sometimes “nag-gagamas”, and also he does painting

jobs, sir.

Q: In pursuing his occupation, do you know what

instrument or instruments is he using?

A: The knife that he usually brings for planting, sir.

Q: The accused is being accused before this Court of having

in his possession a knife on May 17, 2019, are you aware
of that?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And presented as evidence against him is a picture of a

knife marked in evidence, are you aware of that?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And I am showing to you a picture of the accused with a

knife, please go over the same and tell the Court if that is
the accused and the knife depicted in the picture belongs
to him?
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 15

A: Yes, sir. That is the one that he brings.

Q: Do you know where he is using that knife which you said

is always in his possession?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where is he using that knife that was confiscated?

A: “Pagtatabas ng halaman”, weeding, planting, plowing

and doing painting jobs, sir. 33 (Underscoring in the
original)

For his part, Melmar testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE COUNSEL

ATTY. CONSUNTO:

Q: Do you know the accused Eduardo Pojeda Sueña in this

case?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Why do you know him?

A: He used to be my caretaker in a foreclosed property of a

bank, sir.

Q: What bank are you referring to?

A: Banco de Oro, sir.

Q: Which property did the accused become a caretaker?

A: He was able to serve as caretaker for many properties

already; the last one was a property formerly owned by
Edna Co, sir.

Q: As caretaker of a bank property, what are his duties?

A: He does the maintenance of the said property including

the weeding and cleaning of the area, sir.

33 TSN dated 13 October 2020, pp. 2-5.

 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 16

Q: Do you know what instrument or instruments is he using

in cleaning and weeding the bank property?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What is he using?

A: Usually, he uses his knife, sir.

INTERPRETER: The witness demonstrating the length

of knife.

Q: One of the evidence presented by the prosecution against

the accused is a knife, a picture of which I am showing to
you. Have you seen this knife before?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: When did you see this knife?

A: I usually see that knife whenever he is using that at his

workplace, sir.34

The Court finds said testimonial evidence presented by the

defense to be lacking in probative value.

At the outset, it must be stressed that the assessment of the

credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court by
virtue of its unique position to observe the crucial and often
incommunicable evidence of the witnesses’ deportment while
testifying, something which is denied to the appellate court
because of the nature and function of its office.35 Relatedly, when it
is decisive of the guilt or innocence of the accused, the issue of
credibility is determined by the conformity of the conflicting claims
and recollections of the witnesses to common experience and to the
observation of mankind as probable under the circumstances.36 In
this, the defense of accused-appellant fails.

As established by the prosecution, accused-appellant was

34 TSN dated 3 December 2020, pp. 2-4.

35 People v. Olarte, G.R. No. 233209, 11 March 2019.
36 Ibid.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 17

found to be carrying a pellet gun and the subject knife placed in a

rubber holster in a public place, which were tucked in his waist and
back pocket, respectively. While a knife may be used as a tool for
one’s occupation, a pellet gun could hardly qualify as a tool used
for accused-appellant’s alleged occupation. In this case, the
evidence shows that the same pellet gun was used by accused-
appellant to threaten Orlando, which incident led to his
apprehension. It would have been a different scenario had the
subject knife possessed by accused-appellant been found with
other tools or placed in a toolbox or other container and not tucked
in his back pocket together with a pellet gun in his waist. Accused-
appellant failed to convince the Court that he came from work,
where he used the pellet gun and the subject knife as his tools,
when he was apprehended. Moreover, as pointed out by the
prosecution on cross-examination of the three defense witnesses,
accused-appellant could not have been working late at night, at the
time that he was found in possession of the bladed instrument, as
gardening jobs are more suitably done in the daytime.37

The Court notes that the testimony of defense witnesses only

vaguely and generally described accused-appellant’s work, and
did not specifically testify that he was engaged in the said work on
the date of the incident. That accused-appellant’s defense is flimsy
at best is even emphasized by the fact that no documentary
evidence was submitted to prove his supposed employment.
Simply, his claim hinges on the credibility of his witnesses, who are
his relatives and friends, and the record shows nothing that would
warrant reversal of the findings of fact of the trial court. Time and
again, the Supreme Court has held that when the issues involve
matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court, its
calibration of the testimonies, and its assessment of the probative
weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings,
are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect.38

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that while a

possessor of a bladed instrument can claim exemption from the

37 TSN dated 13 October 2020, pp. 5-6; TSN dated 3 December 2020, p. 4; TSN dated 16
February 2021, pp. 3-7.
38 People v. Dayaday, G.R. No. 213224, 16 January 2017.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 18

COMELEC prohibition on the carrying of deadly weapons during

the election period if the same is necessary to his occupation,
accused-appellant failed to rebut the prosecution’s evidence and
prove his defense that the confiscated knife was used by him as a
tool for his occupation by competent evidence.

Thus, the Court finds that the guilt of accused-appellant for

the offense charged was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

As to the penalty for the offense charged, the trial court

imposed the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate term of
one (1) year as minimum to two (2) years as maximum.

Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code however provides:

Sec. 264. Penalties. - Any person found guilty of any

election offense under this Code shall be punished with
imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six
years and shall not be subject to probation. In addition, the
guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to
hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. xxx
(Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the Court finds that the penalty imposed by the trial
court must be modified in accordance with Section 264 of the
Omnibus Election Code and recent jurisprudence. 39 Accused-
appellant’s penalty shall not be subject to probation, and he shall
be sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and
deprivation of the right of suffrage.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated

27 May 2021 of the Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna,
Branch 28, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-
appellant Eduardo Pojeda Sueña is SENTENCED to imprisonment
of one (1) year as minimum to two (2) years as maximum in
accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, not subject to
probation. He is DISQUALIFIED from holding public office and
is DEPRIVED of the right to suffrage.

39 Amado v. People, G.R. No. 244795, 5 December 2022.

 CA-G.R. CR No. 46767
Decision
Page 19

SO ORDERED.

RAFAEL ANTONIO M. SANTOS

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA

Associate Justice

LORENZA R. BORDIOS
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the opinion of the Court was written.

FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

/AGD