In the case at bench, the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from the PNP (FEU) that petitioner was not a licensee of the said firearm would have sufficed for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of the crime of illegal possession. The absence of the foregoing is fatal to the prosecution's case and renders petitioner's conviction erroneous. True that in the case of People vs. Mesal, this Court dispensed with a certification from the firearms and Explosives Unit (FEU) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) to establish the alleged lack of license or permit on the part of the accused-appellant to possess the M-14 rifle found in his possession. This was, however, premised on that fact that: "The records reveal that the allegation was successfully substantiated by other evidence which firmly and undisputably established that accused-appellant did not have and could not possibly have, the requisite license or authority to possess the M-14 rifle concerned. Technical Sgt. Alfredo Romasanta, Supply Officer of the PC-INP 253rd PC Company, testified that the rifle concerned is the type of weapon which only military men are authorized to possess x x x." [G.R. No. 110569. December 9, 1996]
