IMPLICATION BY RA 8294 ON PD 1866 (ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS)
P.D. 1866, which codified the laws on illegal possession of firearms, was amended on June 6, 1997 by Republic Act 8264. 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.
Prescinding therefrom, and considering that the provisions of the amendatory law are favorable to herein appellant, the new law should be retroactively applied in the case at bar. It was thus error for the trial court to convict the appellant of two (2) separate offenses, i.e., Homicide and Illegal Possession of Firearms, and punish him separately for each crime. Based on the facts of the case, the crime for which the appellant may be charged is homicide, aggravated by illegal possession of firearm, the correct denomination for the crime, and not illegal possession of firearm, aggravated by homicide as ruled by the trial court, as it is the former offense which aggravates the crime of homicide under the amendatory law.
EVEN IF ACCUSED ADMITTED THAT HE HAS NO LICENSE, SUCH ADMISSION IS NOT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM
Hence, in the case at bar, although the appellant himself admitted that he had no license for the gun recovered from his possession, his admission will not relieve the prosecution of its duty to establish beyond reasonable doubt the appellant’s lack of license or permit to possess the gun. In People vs. Solayao, we expounded on this doctrine, thus:
“x x x by its very nature, an admission is the mere acknowledgement of a fact or of circumstances from which guilt may be inferred, tending to incriminate the speaker, but not sufficient of itself to establish his guilt.” In other words, it is a statement by defendant of fact or facts pertinent to issues pending, in connection with proof of other facts or circumstances, to prove guilt, but which is, of itself, insufficient to authorize conviction. From the above principles, this Court can infer that an admission in criminal cases is insufficient to prove beyond doubt the commission of the crime charged.
“Moreover, said admission is extrajudicial in nature. As such, it does not fall under Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court which states:
An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case does not require proof.
“Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused-appellant does not prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of illegal possession of firearm. It does not even establish a prima facie case. It merely bolsters the case for the prosecution but does not stand as proof of the fact of absence or lack of a license.” (emphasis supplied) (PP -vs- JULIAN CASTILLO Y LUMAYRO, G.R. No. 131592-93, Feb. 15, 2000)
ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
To convict an accused for illegal possession of firearms and explosive under P.D. 1866 as amended, two (2) essential elements must be indubitably established, viz: (a) the existence of the subject firearm or explosive which may be proved by the presentation of the subject firearm or explosive or by the testimony of witnesses who saw accused in possession of the same, and (b) the negative fact that the accused had no license or permit to own or possess the firearm or explosive which fact may be established by the testimony or certification of a representative of the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit that the accused has no license or permit to possess the subject firearm or explosive.
In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to prove the second element of the crime, i.e., the lack of license or permit of appellant Cortez to possess the hand grenade. Although the hand grenade seized by PO2 Santos from appellant was presented in court, the records bear that PO2 Santos did not submit the grenade to the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit for verification. This explains why no certification or testimony was adduced by the prosecution at the trial to prove that appellant Cortez was not licensed to possess the explosive. The failure of the prosecution to adduce this fact is fatal to its cause. We stress that the essence of the crime penalized under P.D. 1866 is primarily the accused’s lack of license or permit to carry or possess the firearm, ammunition or explosive as possession by itself is not prohibited by law.
MAY EXPLOSIVES BE GIVEN A PERMIT OR LICENSE?
In the case of an explosive, a permit or license to possess it is usually granted to mining corporations, military personnel and other legitimate users. (PP -vs- BERNIE CORTEZ Y NATANIO, ET AL., G.R. Nos. 131619-20, Feb. 1, 2000)
UNDER R.A. 8294 A SEPARATE CONVICTION FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND FOR HOMICIDE IS NOT ALLOWED
With respect to the conviction of accused-appellant for illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866, it was held in the case of People vs. Molinaand reiterated in the recent case of People vs. Ronaldo Valdez, that in cases where murder or homicide is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, there can be no separate conviction for the crime of illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 in view of the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 8294. Thereunder, the use of unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is simply considered as an aggravating circumstance in the murder or homicide and no longer as a separate offense. Furthermore, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms shall be imposed provided that no crime is committed. In other words, where murder or homicide was committed, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance. (PP -vs- AUGUSTO LORETO RINGOR, JR., G.R. No. 123918, Dec. 9, 1999)
JURISPRUDENCE:
People vs. Macasaling, 237 SCRA 299
Intent to Possess, or Animus Possidendi is Essential.
A distinction should be made between criminal intent and intent to possess. While mere possession without criminal intent is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of firearms, it must still be shows that there was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on the part of the accused.
There is no evidence of animus possedendi if the offender was in possession of an unlicensed firearm only on the occasion of the shooting for transitory purpose and for the short moment in connection with the shooting.
Lack of evidence is an essential element of the crime and that the same must be alleged in the Information and duly proved.
People vs Reynaldo Cruz, G.R. No. 76728, August 3, 1988
Ownership of the gun is immaterial or irrelevant in violation of PD 1866, as amended. One may be convicted of possession of an unlicensed firearm even if he is not the owner thereof.
People vs Filemon Ramos, 222SCRA 557
Even if the gun is “paltik”, there is a need to secure license for the gun, and if found without any license therefor, the offender is liable for violation of PD 1866.
People vs. Walpan Ladjaamlam, et al., G.R. No. 136149-51, September 19, 2000
If an unlicensed firearm is used to commit a crime other than homicide or murder, such a direct assault with attempted homicide, the use of unlicensed firearm is neither an aggravating circumstances nor a separate offenses. Since the law used the word Homicide of Murder, possession of an unlicensed firearm is not aggravating in Attempted Homicide.
Note: Under Republic Act 8294, the penalty depends upon the caliber of the gun. Suppose there is no testimony as to the caliber of the gun?
Ernesto Cuenca vs. People, 33 SCRA 522
Where a security guard was given by his employer, a security agency, a firearm, and the accused assumed that the employer secured the license for the firearm but it turned out that the employer failed to get any license, the security guard is not criminally liable. The security guard has the right to assume that the security agency secured the license.
People vs. Perlito Soyang, et al., 110 Phil. 565, 583
If a constabulary soldier entrusted his gun to the accused for safekeeping and later the accused found in possession of the gun, the accused is guilty of possession of unlicensed firearm. To exculpate himself, the accused must prove absence of animus possidendi.
People of the Philippines vs. Bernie Cortez y Natanio, et.al., G.R. Nos. 131619-20, Feb. 1, 2000
May Explosives be Given a Permit or License?
In the case of an explosive, a permit or license to possess it is usually granted to mining corporations, military personnel and other legitimate users.
People of the Philippines vs. Augusto Loreto Ringor, G.R. No. 123918, December 9, 1999
Under R.A. 8294, a separate conviction for illegal possession of firearms and for homicide is not allowed.
With respect to the conviction of accused-appellant for illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866, it was held in the case of People vs. Molina and reiterated in the recent case of People vs. Ronaldo Valdez, that in cases where murder or homicide is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, there can be no separate conviction for the crime of illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 in view of the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 8294. Thereunder, the use of unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is simply considered as an aggravating circumstance in the murder or homicide and no longer as a separate offense. Furthermore, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms shall be imposed provided that no crime is committed. In other words, where murder or homicide was committed, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance.
