This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-03-03 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As correctly cited by the Solicitor General, it is a settled jurisprudence that a memorandum receipt and mission order cannot take the place of a duly issued firearms license,[23] and an accused who relies on said documents cannot invoke good faith as a defense against a prosecution for illegal possession of firearms, as this is a malum prohibitum.[24] Petitioner interposed no new argument that would convince this Court to abandon a deep-rooted jurisprudence. | |||||
|
2001-05-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Aside from the clearly valid and subsisting license issued to petitioner, on January 25, 1995, the Chief, Philippine National Police issued to him a permit to carry firearm outside residence valid until January 25, 1996, for the firearm in question.[29] The Chief, Philippine National Police would not issue a permit to carry firearm outside residence unless petitioner had a valid and subsisting firearm license. Although the permit to carry firearm outside residence was valid for only one year, and expired on January 25, 1996, such permit is proof that the regular firearm license was renewed and subsisting within the two-year term up to January 1997. "A Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence presupposes that the party to whom it is issued is duly licensed to possess the firearm in question."[30] Unquestionably, on January 17, 1997, the Chief, Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP renewed petitioner's license for the .45 cal. Colt pistol in question.[31] | |||||