SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 126048. September
29, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff‑appellee,
vs. PO2 RODEL SAMONTE, accused‑appellant.
D E C I S I O N
BUENA, J.:
This is an appeal from
the decision dated May 13, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court, 5th
Judicial Region, Branch 3, Legazpi City, finding accused‑appellant Rodel
Samonte guilty of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms under Presidential
Decree No. 1866, thus:
“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing
considerations, this Court finds accused RODEL SAMONTE GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of aggravated or qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms as
defined and penalized under Section 1, Par. 2 of PD No. 1866 which pertinently
reads: ‘If homicide or murder is
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearms, the penalty of death shall be
imposed.’ And hereby sentences him to suffer the DEATH PENALTY. However, by reason of Section 19(1), Article
III of the 1987 Constitution which proscribes the imposition of the Death
Penalty, the Death Penalty is hereby reduced to the next lower degree, or
RECLUSION PERPETUA.
“This Court orders the forfeiture of the
firearms, cal. .38 snub nose without serial number Exh. ‘F’, (paltik), with
four (4) live ammunitions, and cal. .38 with serial # INP 1015903, Exh. ‘E’
with six (6) live ammunitions and other incidental paraphernalia Exhs. ‘J, K,
& L’ found in the possession of the accused in favor of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) to be disposed of in accordance with law.”[1]
The antecedents of the
case are as follows:
On June 13, 1993, at
about 1:00 AM, a shooting incident occurred along Rizal Street, Old Albay
District, Legazpi City, resulting in the death of one Siegfred Perez.[2]
Herein accused‑appellant PO2 Rodel Samonte, a policeman detailed in the
Mayors Office of Legazpi City, was one of the suspects in the fatal shooting of
Perez. On June 15, 1993, Prosecution witnesses
SPO4 Ruben Morales and Police Inspector Ricardo Gallardo confronted accused‑appellant in the
City Mayors Office and confiscated the latters service revolver. Thereupon, accused‑appellant informed
Inspector Gallardo that there is another revolver, a caliber .38 paltik
in his house which he (Samonte) allegedly recovered from the culprit
(apparently referring to Siegfred Perez) on June 13, 1993. Both firearms were submitted to the proper
authorities for ballistic examination.[3]
The results showed that
the caliber .38 slug recovered from the body of deceased Perez was indeed fired
from the caliber .38 (paltik) homemade revolver,
marked Smith
and Wesson, without serial number.[4]
Lastly, prosecution
witness Elmer Mabilin who chanced upon the above‑mentioned firearms at
the police station on June 15, 1993, identified both to be that of accused‑appellant.[5]
Charges of Murder and
Illegal Possession of Firearms were separately filed against accused‑appellant. This case before us stemmed from the
Information dated August 16, 1993, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 13th day of June,
1993, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above‑named accused, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession an unlicensed .38 Caliber
snub nose revolver (paltik) with four (4) live ammunitions, without first securing
the necessary and requisite license or permit therefore (sic) from the proper
authorities, which firearm was used in shooting SIEGFRED PEREZ resulting in the
death of the latter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
Upon arraignment on
December 9, 1993, accused‑appellant, assisted by Atty. Alfredo Kallos,
entered a plea of not guilty.[7]
After the prosecution
rested its case, accused‑appellant, through counsel, filed a Demurrer to
Evidence but the same was denied in an order dated September 21, 1994.[8]
While accused‑appellant opted not to testify, the defense presented
Police Officer Brandon Dyanko and Lilia Santillan to testify on the police
blotter regarding the June 13 shooting incident, and on the Memorandum for
Preliminary Investigation,[9]
respectively. Thereafter, the trial
court found accused‑appellant guilty of the crime charged and was
sentenced accordingly.
Hence this appeal with
the following assigned errors:
“The
trial court erred as follows:
“IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED‑APPELLANT
OF AGGRAVATED OR QUALIFIED ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS, THE TRIAL COURT
INTERFERED WITH BRANCH 9 OF THE SAME REGIONAL TRIAL COURT WHICH ACQUITTED HIM
OF THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE.
“DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO
ESTABLISH THE ELEMENTS CONSTITUTIVE OF THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS,
THE TRIAL COURT CONVICTED THE ACCUSED‑APPELLANT.”[10]
In support of the first
assignment of error, accused‑appellant contends that inspite of the fact
that it was made known to the trial court that Branch 9 of the same court
(Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City) acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 6336
for homicide, said court still entertained Criminal Case No. 6337 for illegal
possession of firearms aggravated by homicide under P.D. 1866.
This contention is not
tenable. There was no interference by
the trial court (Branch 3) with Branch 9 of the same Regional Trial Court which
acquitted the accused‑appellant of the crime of homicide. As pointed out by the Solicitor General,
citing People
vs. Quijada,[11]
qualified illegal possession of firearms and homicide are distinct and separate
offenses punishable under separate laws.
Considering that accused‑appellant allegedly used an unlicensed
firearm in killing Siegfred Perez, he was charged with aggravated illegal
possession of firearms. His acquittal
of the homicide did not preclude his prosecution for aggravated illegal
possession of firearms for they were two distinct and separate crimes.
The trial court
convicted the accused‑appellant of aggravated or qualified illegal
possession of firearms as defined and penalized under Section 1, Paragraph 2 of
P.D. No. 1866. However, on June 6,
1997, P.D. No 1866 was amended by R.A. 8294 which became effective on July 6,
1997, fifteen days after its publication in Malaya and Philippine Journal on
June 21, 1997.
Section 1 of PD 1866,
as amended by RA 8294, now reads:
“Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or
Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to be Used
in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period
and a fine of not less than Fifteen Thousand pesos (P15,000) shall be imposed
upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or
possess, any low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and
other firearm of similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery,
tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any
firearm or ammunition: Provided,
That no other crime was committed.
“The penalty of prision mayor in
its minimum period and a fine of Thirty Thousand pesos (P30,000) shall be
imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered firearm which includes
those with bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as
caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but considered
powerful such as caliber .357 and
caliber . 22 center‑fire magnum and other firearms with firing capability
of full automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no other crime was
committed by the person arrested.
“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.
“If the violation of this Section is in furtherance
of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or
insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup detat, such violation shall be
absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or
attempted coup detat.
“The same penalty shall be imposed upon
the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer of any
public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or
knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or
entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the
provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or knowingly allow any of
them to use unlicensed firearms or firearms without any legal authority to be
carried outside of their residence in the course of their employment.
“The penalty of arresto mayor
shall be imposed upon any person who shall carry any licensed firearm outside
his residence without legal authority therefor.” (emphasis ours)
In People vs. Quijada,[12] we
ruled that violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 is an offense distinct
from murder. With the enactment of
Republic Act 8294 amending PD 1866, we have now abandoned the doctrine
in Quijada. Applying the new law (RA 8294) in People vs. Molina,[13]
we declared, thus:
“Fortunately, for
appellants, however, RA 8294 has now amended the said decree and considers the
use of an unlicensed firearm simply as an aggravating circumstance in murder or
homicide, and not as a separate offense.
The intent of Congress to treat as a single offense the illegal
possession of firearm and the commission of murder or homicide with the use of
such unlicensed firearm is clear from the following deliberations of the Senate
during the process of amending Senate Bill No. 1148:
‘Senator Drilon. On line 18, we propose to retain the
original provision of law which says, If homicide or murder is committed with
the use of the unlicensed firearm. And in order that we can shorten the
paragraph, we would suggest and move that the use of the unlicensed firearm be
considered as an aggravating circumstance rather than imposing another period
which may not be in consonance with the Revised Penal Code.
‘So that if I may read the paragraph in
order that it can be understood, may I propose an amendment to lines 18 to 22
to read as follows: If homicide or
murder is committed with the use of the unlicensed firearm, SUCH USE OF AN
UNLICENSED FIREARM SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.’
‘x x x x x x x x x
‘Senator Santiago. Mr. President.
‘The President. With the
permission of the two gentlemen, Senator Santiago is recognized.
‘Senator Santiago. Will the principal author allow me as co‑author
to take the [f]loor to explain, for the information of our colleagues, the
stand taken by the Supreme Court on the question of whether aggravated illegal
possession is a complex or a compound offense.
May I have the [f]loor?
‘Senator Revilla. Yes, Mr. President.
‘Senator Santiago. Thank you.
‘In 1995, the Supreme Court
held that when the crime of killing another person is committed with the use of
an unlicensed firearm, the ruling in the case of People v. Barros was
that the crime should only be illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated
form. But in the later case, in May
1996, in the case of People v. Evangelista, the court apparently took
another position and ruled that when a person is killed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, it is possible to file two separate information[s] one for murder and one for illegal possession
of firearms.
‘In other words, in two
successive years, the Supreme Court issued two different ways of treating the
problem. The first is to treat it as
one crime alone in the aggravated form, and the second is to treat it as two
separate crimes.
‘So at this point, the Senate
has a choice on whether we shall follow the 1995 or the 1996 ruling. The proposal of the gentleman, as a proposed
amendment, is to use the 1995 ruling and to consider the offense as only one
offense but an aggravated form. That
could be acceptable also to this co‑author.
‘The presiding Officer [Sen.
Flavier.] So, do I take it that the amendment is accepted?
‘Senator Revilla. Yes, it is accepted, Mr. President.
‘The Presiding Officer [Sen.
Flavier.] Thank you. Is there any
objection to the amendment? [Silence] There being none, the amendment is
approved.’
“Although the explanation of
the legal implication of the Drilon amendment may not have been very precise,
such modification, as approved and carried in the final version enacted as RA
8294, is unequivocal in language and meaning.
The use of an unlicensed firearm in a killing is now merely an
aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder or homicide. This is clear from the very wordings of the
third paragraph of Section 1 of RA 8294, which reads:
‘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.’
“Furthermore, the preceding
paragraphs, also in Section 1, state that the penalties for illegal possession
of firearms shall be imposed provided that no other crime is committed. In
other words, where murder or homicide was committed, the separate penalty for
illegal possession shall no longer be meted out since it becomes merely a
special aggravating circumstance.”
Under the
amendment, if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
firearm, such use of the same should only be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.[14]
Similarly,
the records of the present case bare just that.
From the
information alone, it is evident that the crime of Illegal Possession of
Firearms was attended by another crime
the killing of Siegfred Perez.
In fact, during the presentation of evidence for the prosecution, it is
revealed that the evidence offered were those used in the other case against
accused‑appellant.[15] The defense likewise showed that a separate case for murder was
indeed instituted.[16]
While the
crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms in the present case had been committed
on June 13, 1993, we should give retroactive application to RA 8294 which
considers the use of an unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim as a
mere aggravating circumstance, as it is advantageous to accused‑appellant.[17]
Even
granting that a simple case of illegal possession of firearms may be permitted
against accused‑appellant, the same must still fail, for the prosecution
neglected to show any proof that the questioned firearm was unlicensed. The fact that the subject firearm is a paltik revolver is of no consequence.
In People vs. De Vera, Sr. [18] where the subject firearm was a mere sumpac, we did not dispense with the requirement of proving the same to be
unlicensed.[19] Withal, an acquittal is in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED.
Accused‑appellant PO2 Rodel Samonte is ACQUITTED of the crime of
Illegal Possession of Firearms under PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294. His immediate release from prison is hereby
ordered unless he is held for other legal cause.
The Director
of Prisons is ordered to report within ten (10) days his compliance with this
decision.
SO
ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman),
Mendoza, Quisumbing, and De Leon,
Jr., JJ., concur.