Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

People vs. Lazaro G.R. No.

112090 October 26, 1999 Facts: Accused- appellant Apolinar Lazaro was charged and found guilty by the RTC of Naga City, Branch 24, of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Section 1 of PD no. 1866. Accused contends that the trial court erred in relying solely upon the certification from the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office attesting that he is not a licensee of any firearm. Considering that the person who made the document was not presented in court to testify. Thus, the certification should have been excluded for being hearsay. Issue: Whether or not the certification made by the commanding officer of the PNP-Firearm and Explosives Office attesting that the accused is not a licensed possessor of a firearm of any kind or caliber would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of illegal possession of firearms. Ruling: The court on several occasions ruled that the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from, the PNP Firearms and Explosives attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove beyond reasonable that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess the same. The certificate of a custodian that he has diligently searched for a document and has been unable to find it ought to be as satisfactory an evidence of its non- existence in his office as his testimony on the stand to this effect would be. Thus, the accused is guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms.

People vs. Dorimon G.R No. 114267 December 17, 1999 Facts: Appellant Dorimon was an eighteen (18) year-old senior high school student. He was charged with the crime of illegal possession of firearm having been found in his possession a .22 cal. paltik that he allegedly used to threaten a classmate who had defeated him in a basketball game at school. The lower court found him guilty of the crime charged. Thus, appellant appealed, contending that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he owned or possessed an unlicensed firearm. Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. Ruling: The following are the elements of the crime of illegal possession of firearms: The existence of the subject firearm; and The fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess the same. The first requisite is present; the subject firearm was recovered from the person of accused. The second requisite, wherein the court held that the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from, the PNP firearms and explosives unit that appellant was not a licensee of the said firearm would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. In this case, while the information alleged that appellant did not possess any license or permit to carry, such fact was not established

during trial. The only reference to the non-possession of a license or permit of the appellant was when the trial judge propounded clarificatory questions to SPO3 Tamala and SPO2 Lagare. The clarificatory questions are insufficient to prove the essential element of non-possession of the necessary license or permit. It does not also that SPO3 Tamala and SPO2 Lagare are duly authorized reprentatives of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit, and neither was a certificate from said office was presented. Thus, the insufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the decision of the lower court is reversed. People vs. Abriol G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001 Facts: Appellant was charged and found guilty by the lower court of the crime of murder and illegal possession of firearms. 0n appeal, appellants contend among others that, the trial court erred in convicting appellants of illegal possession of firearms. They argued that they should not be convicted of two separate offenses of murder and illegal possession of firearms because of the amendments made in PD 1866 by RA no. 8294. Issue: Whether or not appellants are guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms Ruling: The court ruled that with the passage of RA No. 8294 the used of unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is not a separate crime, but merely a special aggravating circumstance. Appellants are thus guilty only of murder with the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms.

People vs. Candido G.R. No. 134072-73 June 10, 2002 Facts: Accused was found guilty of murder and illegal possession of firearms by the lower court. On appeal, the accused argued that the lower court erred in not applying the provision of RA No. 8294 and in convicting the accused for two separate offenses. Issue: Whether or not the accused can be held liable for two separate offenses of murder and illegal possession of firearms Ruling: The court ruled that under Section 1 of R.A. No. 8294, where murder or homicide is committed with the use of unlicensed firearm, the separate penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall no longer be meted out since it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance. The penalty for illegal possession of firearms shall be imposed in all other cases where none of the crimes enumerated under RA No. 8294 is committed. The intent of the congress is to treat the offense of illegal possession of firearm and the commission of homicide or murder with the use of unlicensed firearm as a single offense. Thus, the accused is guilty only of the crime of murder. People vs. Ave G.R. No. 137274-75 October 18, 2002 Facts: Appellant Dan Ave was charged the crimes of frustrated murder, murder, and illegal possession of firearms. After trial the lower court found appellant guilty of the crime of frustrated murder and murder. It considered the use of unlicensed firearm in the commission of the

crime as an aggravating circumstance in the murder case. Appellant appealed the decision of the lower court contending among others that the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was not alleged in the informations. Thus, the death penalty should not be imposed. Issue: Whether or not the use of unlicensed firearm should be alleged in the information before it can be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance Ruling: The court ruled that in the case at bar, the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm was not alleged in the informations. The two (2) informations for murder and frustrated murder merely alleged that the appellant used a long firearm. They did not allege that the firearm used was unlicensed. The failure of the prosecution to allege in the information the aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm in committing the crime of murder prevents the court from imposing the death penalty on the appellant even if the same was proved at the trial. People vs. Casingal GR No. 132214 August 1, 2000 Facts: Accused was charged with the crime of murder and illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. After tria,l the lower court found accused guilty of the crime charged against him. The trial court stressed that RA No. 8294 cannot be given retroactive effect for it was enacted in 1997 while the crimes charged against the accused were committed in 1995. Issue:

Whether or not RA No. 8294 can be given retroactive effect Ruling: RA No. 8294 is favourable to the accused, and should thus be retroactively applied in the present case. It was thus error for the trial court to convict the accused of two separate offenses. The crime for which the accused may be charged is murder, aggravated by illegal possession of firearm. People vs. Almeida G. R. Nos. 146107-09 December 11, 2003 Facts: The lower court convicted accused-appellant of two separate crimes of illegal position of firearms and ammunition and illegal position of dangerous drugs. On appeal, accused argued that the trial court erred in not appreciating the provisions of RA No. 8294 which provides among others that, there can be no separate offense of illegal possession of firearms if there is another crime committed. Issue: Whether or not accused can be convicted of the crime of illegal possession of firearm Ruling: The court ruled that, in view of the enactment of RA No. 8294, there can be no separate offense of illegal possession of firearms if there is another crime committed such as, in this case, that of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Accused should, therefore, be acquitted of the charges of illegal possession of firearms, but his conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs should be sustained. Agote vs. Lorenzo

GR No. 142675 July 22, 2005 Facts: Petitioner Agote was charged with illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866 and violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 (Gun Ban), committed on April 27, 1996. The trial court rendered judgement of conviction against Agote in both cases. Meanwhile, on June 6, 1997, RA No. 8294 was approved into law. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration contending that the penalty prescribed in RA No. 8294 should be applied instead of that prescribed under PD 1866. The trial court denied the MR. On appeal the CA affirmed the trial courts decision. Issue: Whether or not the provisions of RA No. 8294 can be applied in favour of the accused Ruling: Under RA No. 8294, the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms provided that no other crime was committed by the person arrested. Here the accused committed violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 (Gun Ban) at the same time when illegal possession of firearms was committed. Applying the provisions of RA No. 8294, the accused cannot be convicted for illegal possession of firearms since another crime had been committed at the same time. People vs. Montinola GR No. 131856-57 July 29, 2001 Facts: Accused Montinola was charged with robbery with homicide. While the case is pending, RA No. 8294 was enacted thereby amending PD

No. 1866. It provides among others that, there could be no separate conviction for illegal possession of firearm if homicide or murder is committed with the use of unlicensed firearm. The trial court convicted accused of two separate crimes of illegal possession of firearms and robbery with homicide. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. Issue: Whether the use of unlicensed firearm in the killing perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the robbery may be treated as a separate offense or as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery with homicide. Ruling: The court ruled that there could be no separate conviction of illegal possession of firearm if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm; instead such use shall be considered merely as an aggravating circumstance in the homicide or murder committed. Hence, in so far as the new law is advantageous to the accused, as it will spare him from a separate conviction for illegal possession of firearm, shall be given retroactive effect. People vs. Ladjaalam GR Nos. 136149-51 September 19, 2000 Facts: The lower court to which the Court of Appeals affirmed, found accused guilty of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide, illegal possession of firearms and violation of dangerous drugs act. On appeal, accused argued that, he should not be convicted of illegal possession of firearms because of the passage of RA No. 8294. Issue:

Whether or not accused can be convicted of two separate crimes of illegal possession of firearms and direct assault with attempted homicide Ruling: Under RA No. 8294, if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the other crime is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, mot a separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms. People vs. Nepomuceno, Jr. GR No. 130800 June 29, 1999 Facts: The lower court found accused guilty of two separate crimes of parricide and illegal possession of firearms. The decision of the lower court was affirmed by the CA. On appeal, the accused seeks the reversal of the appealed decision asserting that the court must allow him the benefit of RA No. 8294 to take retroactive effect so as to acquit him of the crime of qualified illegal possession of fiream. Issue: Whether or not the accused should not be held liable for illegal possession of firearm applying the 3rd paragraph of Section 1 of RA No. 8294 Ruling:

RA. No. 8294 Section 1 Paragraph 3, provides that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Only one offense should be punished, either homicide or murder, and the use of unlicensed firearm should only be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Being favourable to the accused, this provision may be given retroactive effect, he not being a habitual delinquent. Thus, accused should not be held liable for illegal possession of firearms. People vs. Nunez GR. No. 112092 March 1, 2001 Facts: Accused was charged with three separate crimes of illegal possession of firearms, frustrated murder and murder. The cases were all separately tried. After trial the lower court found the accused guilty of the crimes charged against him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. On appeal, accused argued that the court erred in not applying the ruling of the court in People vs Molina. The court ruled in that case that the use of unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder should be considered only as an aggravating circumstance. Hence, accused should not be held guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms but should only be considered as aggravating circumstance. Issue: Whether or not the ruling in the case of People vs. Molina can be applied in the present case Ruling:

The Molina ruling is not applicable in the present case. In Molina, separate informations for murder, frustrated murder and illegal possession of firearms were filed, but the cases were eventually consolidated and jointly tried and decided. In the present case, there were four cases filed against appellant which were all separately tried. Hence, the evidence as to the homicide and frustrated homicide cases were neither adopted nor presented before the trial court trying the illegal possession case. For this reason, there is a shortage of evidence on record to support the finding of homicide and/or frustrated homicide. Since, the facts obtaining in the case do not indubitably prove the frustrated murder cases or the murder case in relation to illegal possession case, accused should only be convicted of the crime of simple illegal possession of firearms. Al-Ghoul vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 126859 September 4, 2001 Facts: Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the orders of the RTC, convicting them of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. On appeal, petitioners argued that they could not be charged with violation of PD 1866 because the seized items were not taken from their possession. Issue: Whether or not actual possession of firearms is an indispensable element for prosecution under PD 1866 Ruling: The contention of the petitioners cannot prosper. Actual possession of firearms and ammunitions is not an indispensable element for prosecution under PD 1866. In People vs. Dela Rosa 284 SCRA 158,

168-169, the court clarified that the kind of possession punishable under PD 1866 is one where the accused possessed a firearm either physically or constructively with animus possidendi or intent to possess said firearm. Whether or not the evidence would show all the elements of PD 1866 in this case is a different matter altogether. People vs. Dela Rosa GR No. 84857 January 16, 1998 Facts: Rodolfo Dela Rosa appeals the decision of the RTC, convicting him of illegal possession of firearms and explosives. The RTC ruled that mere possession is sufficient to convict Delaa Rosa of the crime charged. On appeal Dela Rosa argued that though he was in possession of the ammunitions, his real intention was merely to turn over the ammunition, which was owned by Kumander Tamang, to the authorities. Thus, he should be acquitted of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. Issue: Whether or not Dela Rosa is guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms Ruling: In the present case, it is not enough that the firearm was found in the person of the accused, who held the same temporarily and casually, or for the purpose of surrendering the same. Animus possidendi is a state of mind and could be determined only based on the prior and spontaneous circumstance explaining how the subject firearm came to his possession. While accused pleaded lack of animus possidendi his conduct belied the same. Accused was found to have secured a temporary license for the subject firearm. Under such circumstance,

the accused intended to possess the subject firearm beyond reasonable doubt and should be convicted of the crime charged.

Case Digest on PEOPLE v. JULIAN CASTILLO G.R. No. 131592-93. February 15, 2000
November 26, 2010 With the passage of Republic Act No. 8294 on June 6, 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered, not as a separate crime, but merely a special aggravating circumstance. In the case at bar, appellant JULIAN CASTILLO y LUMAYRO was charged with Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms. HELD: P.D. 1866, which codified the laws on illegal possession of firearms, was amended on June 6, 1997 by Republic Act 8294. Aside from lowering the penalty for said crime, R.A. 8294 also provided that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as a special aggravating circumstance. This amendment has two (2) implications: first, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder shall not be treated as a separate offense, but merely as a special aggravating circumstance; second, as only a single crime (homicide or murder with the aggravating circumstance of illegal possession of firearm) is committed under the law, only one penalty shall be imposed on the accused. Two (2) requisites are necessary to establish illegal possession of firearms: first, the existence of the subject firearm, and second, the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the gun did not have the corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence. The onus probandi of establishing these elements as alleged in the Information lies with the prosecution.

PEOPLE V. NAVARRO GR 132696 Feb.12,2001


April 11, 2011 PEOPLE V. NAVARRO GR 132696 Feb.12,2001 Accused was convicted by the trial court for the crime of murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm. HELD: GUILTY! Trial court Affirmed and the accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The crime was murder because the killing was attended with treachery. There was no opportunity for the deceased to retaliate or defend himself, the particular means employed which was the use of a motor vehicle, and, the circumstance of nighttime, all point to the nature of the killing. On the issue of the firearm, there can be no separate conviction for the illegal use of a firearm. As the law now stands, this is merely considered as an aggravating circumstance (P.D. 1866 as amended by RA 8294). Since the death penalty was not yet effective at the time of the offense, the penalty is reclusion perpetua. The original penalty for murder was reclusion temporal but since there was an aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm, the penalty was raised to reclusion perpetua.

Nevertheless

Prescinding
Hereafter Ammunition Remorse animus possidendi