Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City

NINETEENTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee.

- versus CA-GR. CR No. 01976

GEOFREY ALAMA Y ZAMORA,,

Accused-Appellant,

x-------------------------------------x

ACCUSED/APPELLANTS BRIEF

Accused/Appellant, through counsel, and before this Honorable Appellate Court,

hereby most respectfully submits the herein Accused/Appellants Brief, and hereby

further avers and alleges the following, to wit:

BRIEF STATEMENTOF FACTS

The Information charges one GEOFREY ALAMA Y ZAMORA, for the alleged

violation of PD 1866, as amended by R.A.8294, stating that on March 14, 2012 at

around 12;45 oclock in the morning in Dumaguete City, the responding policemen were

able to confiscate from the accused one (1) cal. 45 pistol without a license and a permit

to carry the same.

That after due notice and hearing, the prosecution presented four (4) witnesses,

while accused did not present any evidence and through counsel manifested his waiver

to introduce any evidence in his defense.1

1
P. 2, Judgment, July 21, 2012
 After trial, the Honorable Court a quo rendered Judgment finding accused

GEOFREY ALAMA Y ZAMORA guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the instant

appeal.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

On March 14, 2012 when accused/appellant GEOFREY ALAMA Y ZAMORA was

arrested for the alleged violation of PD 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294, he was a

Appellants Briefcontinued/
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

-page two-

member of the Special Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Active Auxiliary,

bearing the acronym SCAA, the latters forerunner being widely known as CAFGU or

Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit, variously called Citizens Armed Forces

Geographical Unit, Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Unit and commonly

referred to by its acronym CAFGU, an irregular auxiliary force of the Armed Forces of

the Philippines.

As a member of the CAFGU, now also known as SCAA, the herein

accused/appellant, was issued with a Mission Order bearing serial No. A121B-107-

2011, dated January 05, 2012 valid until April 05, 2012, (a machine copy of which is

hereto attached and marked as Annex 1 for easy reference) by 1LT ROBERTO F.

SALVADOR, the Commanding Officer of the ALPHA COY 12 TH INF BN, REINF, BD,

PA, based in Camp Leon Kilat, Tanjay City, Negros Oriental. As can be gleaned under

Roman Numeral IV of the said Mission Order herein accused/appellant was extended

with the authority to carry firearm and immediately followed by the entries particularly
describing the make of the firearms issued, the corresponding serial number of the

firearms and such other which undoubtedly show that the firearm confiscated from the

accused/appellant was the very same firearm stated in the Mission Order. Relative

thereto and made as an integral part of Mission Order No. A121B-107-2011, is an

ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT FOR EQUIPMENT, No. 453, signed by the

accused/appellant duly approved by 1LT ROBERTO F. SALVADOR, as shown by his

signature appearing therein which leads. These attached documents point to only one

conclusion that the firearm is owned by the Philippine Army, a major military force of the

Government, and not by the accused/appellant. This would ostensibly explain the fact

Appellants Briefcontinued/
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

-page three-

why the name of the accused could not be found in the list of registered owners of the

said firearm or any firearm for that matter as testified to by Prosecution witnesses SPO4

Cesar Olasiman and SPO1 Glenn Facturan2.

Viewed from the foregoing antecedent facts, can it be said that, at the time

accused/appellant was arrested for the alleged crime, the basic element of possession

of a firearm without license or authority to carry the same as charged in the Information

against the accused/appellant present? Worded differently, at the time of confiscation of

the said cal. 45 pistol, was the accused/appellant in possession of the same without any

apparent authority?

Evidently, however, it can be perused from the records of this case that

accused/appellant did not present much less offer the above-mentioned annexes which

were already existing at the time of his arrest, as part of his evidence for the Honorable

2
Pars. 2 &3, P.2, Judgment, July 21, 2012
Courts consideration and which could have persuaded the Honorable Court to arrive at

a much different Judgment.

It is, therefore, the contention of the accused/appellant that the failure to present

and offer evidence in his behalf was tantamount to a deprivation of the time-honored

constitutional right of an accuseds day in court.

Appellants Briefcontinued/
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

-page four-

PROPOSED LEGAL ISSUE

Accused/appellant respectfully submits that the legal issue subject to this appeal

would be as follows, to wit:

COULD THE FAILURE TO INTERPOSE THE DEFENSE OF POSSESSION OF

AN AUTHORITY TO POSSESS FIREARM, DESPITE ITS AVAILABILITY, AND

RESULTING TO HIS CONVICTION BE CONSIDERED A GROSS NEGLIGENCE

EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVING ACCUSED/APPELLANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONALLY

GUARANTEED DAY IN COURT THEREBY WARRANTING A NEW TRIAL?

DISCUSSION

Accused/appellant respectfully maintains that at the time of his apprehension on

March 14, 2012 he was a member of the Special Civilian Armed Forces

Geographical Active Auxillary, or SCAA, used to be known as CAFGU, which was a

para-military group to augment the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in fighting

and curbing the rise of the insurgency problem. Ostensibly, to make the elements of the
said group effective in their fight against rebels and insurgents they were being allowed

to carry firearms within their locality the civilians and their community.

In the case at bar, it is very clear and apparent that accused/appellant was

issued with a firearm by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) with the

corresponding authority to carry the same as evidently stated under Mission Order No.

A121B-107-2011, above-mentioned. To take a stand that the granting of authority by

the Armed Forces of the Philippines to a civilian to carry firearm is bereft of validity is to

espouse a posture that issuances and policies by the Armed Forces of the Philippines

are spurious, illegal or downright unlawful, therefore, should not be respected.

According to accused/appellant, his counsel was made aware of such piece of

evidence during trial, however, up to this point in time he is still wondering why it was

not brought to the attention of the Honorable Trial Court. Neither was he allowed any

opportunity to offer any statement in his defense during the trial for the reason that

counsel waived the presentation of evidence in his behalf. He strongly believes that had

he been allowed to testify in his defense and offer as evidence the document which was

issued by another government entity pursuant to a legitimate purpose, expressly stating

therein the authority to a civilian to carry firearm, the Honorable Trial Court could have

arrived at a different and more favorable verdict. Regrettably, the Honorable Trial Court

has no other option but to base his decision on the available evidence which came

solely and exclusively from the prosecution. Although it should be mentioned herein

that the action of the counsel binds his client, however, this legal precept admits of

exceptions under certain circumstances.

Viewed from the antecedent facts, the Honorable Supreme Court laid down

several legal pronouncements in the several cases embodying similar scenarios, the

bottom line of which is the deprivation of a party/litigant his day in court for the failure

to effectively and conscientiously advance the cause of a party/litigant.

 This edict cannot be more emphasized other than in the case of MULTI-TRANS

AGENCY PHILS, INC., vs. ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORP., G.R. No. 180817, June

23, 2009, where the pertinent portion is hereby quoted, as follows, to wit:

Petitioners may not be made to suffer for the lawyers mistakes and should be
afforded another opportunity, at least, to introduce evidence on their behalf. To
cling to the general rule in this case is only to condone rather than rectify a
serious injustice to a party whose only fault was to repose his faith and entrust
his innocence to his previous lawyers.

What should guide judicial action is that a party be given the fullest opportunity
to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life,
liberty, honor or property on mere technicalities. In cases involving gross or
palpable negligence of counsel the courts must step in and accord relief to a
client who has suffered thereby. This Court will always be disposed to grant relief
to parties aggrieved by perfidy, fraud, reckless inattention and downright
incompetence of lawyers, which has the consequence of depriving their clients,
of their day in court.