THE Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision of the Taguig City Regional Trial Court convicting a member of the Maute terrorist group, who was arrested by Army soldiers in 2016 for unlawful possession of an explosive or an incendiary device.
In a 17-page ruling promulgated on June 1, the appellate court’s Fifth Division through Associate Justice Maximo de Leon held that the prosecution was able to establish that accused Nasifa Pundug was caught in possession of a blasting cap while members the Army’s 51st Infantry Battalion were conducting random checkpoints in Lanao del Sur on Aug. 22, 2016.
Pundug was on board a Tamaraw FX along with seven other people alleged to be members of the Maute terrorist group when they were apprehended.
Also confiscated by the soldiers were an 81-millimeter mortar ammunition and a pipe bomb.
The Taguig RTC, in its assailed ruling, held that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of illegal possession of explosives against Pundug and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Pundug’s motion for reconsideration dated June 5, 2020 was denied by the trial court a month later for lack of merit, prompting him to elevate the case to the CA.
In affirming the RTC’s ruling, the appellate court also did not give credence to the argument of Pundug that her conviction should be set aside as the prosecution failed to establish the existence of the explosive.
Pundug has argued in her motion that the blasting cap allegedly recovered from her has no serial number and was not properly marked by authorities.
She further argued that there was no photograph taken of the said blasting cap and that it was not presented during trial, giving doubt as to its existence and identification.
But the CA held the non-presentation of the blasting cap during trial was due to logistical impossibility and security issues.
“During the trial, Army 2nd Lt. Joseph Plumentera has sufficiently established that the lack of any photograph of the subject blasting cap was due to its sensitivity to a camera’s flash which could also induce its explosion. Meanwhile, the non-presentation of the subject blasting cap during trial was obviously due to the logistical impossibility or complications brought about by its sensitive and dangerous nature,” the CA ruling said.
“To our mind, to require the transport of the blasting cap from Marawi City to Taguig City in order to present the same during trial will invariably subject the personnel who will transport the same to unnecessary harm and danger. It is clear that it will only cause more harm than good,” it added.
The appellate court held that denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by the witness or witnesses unless it is substantiated by clear and convincing proof, adding that aside from Plumentera’s testimony, the prosecution was also able to produce “sufficient documentary evidence” to sustain the conviction of Pundug.
