Citizenship requirement for elective officials

"In sum, we rule that the citizenship requirement in the Local Government Code is to be possessed by an elective official at the latest as of the time he is proclaimed and at the start of the term of office to which he has been elected. We further hold P.D. No. 725 to be in full force and effect up to the present, not having been suspended or repealed expressly nor impliedly at any time, and Frivaldo's repatriation by virtue thereof to have been properly granted and thus valid and effective. Moreover, by reason of the remedial or curative nature of the law granting him a new right to resume his political status and the legislative intent behind it, as well as his unique situation of having been forced to give up his citizenship and political aspiration as his means of escaping a regime he abhorred, his repatriation is to be given retroactive effect as of the date of his application therefor, during the pendency of which he was stateless, he having given up his U.S. nationality. Thus, in contemplation of law, he possessed the vital requirement of Filipino citizenship as of the start of the term of office of governor, and should have been proclaimed instead of Lee. Furthermore, since his reacquisition of citizenship retroacted to August 17, 1994, his registration as a voter of Sorsogon is deemed to have been validated as of said date as well. The foregoing, of course, are precisely consistent with our holding that lack of the citizenship requirement is not a continuing disability or disqualification to run for and hold public office. And once again, we emphasize herein our previous rulings recognizing the Comelec's authority and jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for annulment of proclamations."

Source  - 

GR No. 120295 June 28, 1996

JUAN G. FRIVALDO, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and RAUL R. LEE, respondents.

G.R. No. 123755 June 28, 1996

RAUL R. LEE, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JUAN G. FRIVALDO, respondents.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/jun1996/gr_120295_1996.html

 

Unlawful possession of firearm

"Unlawful possession of firearm is punishable under Section 28 (a), Article V of REPUBLIC ACT 10591, otherwise known as the "COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT" which provides that:

"SEC. 28. Unlawful Acquisition, or Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. – The unlawful acquisition, possession of firearms and ammunition shall be penalized as follows:

"(a) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm." 

The elements of Unlawful Possession of Firearm were enumerated and explained by the Court in the case of CASTIL VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, GR 253930, JULY 13, 2022, where the Supreme Court speaking through Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando stated that:

"Section 28 penalizes unlawful possession of a firearm. The elements of the offense are: (a) the existence of the subject firearm; and, (b) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it. If the firearm is loaded with ammunition, the penalty is increased one degree higher. xxx

"Under contention is the second element of lack of license. The CA ruled that petitioner's JUDICIAL ADMISSION proves the existence of the second element. Petitioner, however, contends that his admission is insufficient for a conviction as there is a need for the prosecution to submit a NEGATIVE CERTIFICATION from the PNP to prove the second element.

"The Court agrees with the CA. Petitioner's own JUDICIAL ADMISSION of his lack of license to carry a firearm is SUFFICIENT to establish the second element of the crime.

"To be clear, there is no exact way of proving the second element of Illegal Possession of Firearms. What matters is that the courts, including this Court, are convinced that the element is proven beyond reasonable doubt regardless of the kind of evidence offered to prove it. Notably, RA 10591 and case law do not provide for specific modes to prove the element of lack of license to carry a firearm.

"Hence, as proof of the second element, the Court usually accepts the presentation of a certification issued by the Firearms and Explosives Office of the PNP showing that the accused is not a licensed or registered holder of a firearm, or the testimony to that effect of a representative therefrom.

... There is no exact way to prove the element of lack of corresponding license to possess or carry firearm and the "Negative Certification" from the FEO is not the only acceptable evidence to prove lack of corresponding license for the firearm. The testimony of the officer from the said office may be accepted to support the second element of lack of license..."

Source - 

https://www.manilatimes.net/2023/03/10/legal-advice/illegal-possession-of-firearm/1882085