crime of illegal possession of firearm and sentencing him to ten 10 years and

Crime of illegal possession of firearm and sentencing

This preview shows page 47 - 49 out of 68 pages.

crime of illegal possession of firearm andsentencing him to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and in Criminal Case No. 92-1384, finding
Image of page 47
appellant and accused guilty of the crime of homicide with the use of an unlicensed firearm, sentencing them to the penalty of reclusion perpetua.On September 1, 1992, at around 11:30 in the evening Amado Guina,Joe Mari Tamargo and Peter Castro were on board a public utility jeepney along Taft Avenue (pp. 19-20, TSN, January 12, 1993) coming from Buendia bound for Manila. They had just come from their work in a marble works company at Megamall in EDSA. The jeepney was fully loaded with passengers (p. 8, ibid). Amado was seated on one side at the rear portion of the jeepney directly facing Joe Mari and Peter who were seated at the other side of the jeepney. When the jeep was cruising near the San Isidro Church in Pasay City, appellant, who was seated immediately next to the right of Amado, suddenly, announced a hold-up (whispering do not move, this is a hold up. Appellant was holding a gun. Amado moved both of his hands as he wanted to resist and appellant, upon seeing this, immediately fired the gun at Amado. A commotion ensued inside the jeepney during which time appellant and his companion, Jaime Tolibas, fled from the scene. Can the appellant be convicted of the crime murder? Answer: As to the crime or crimes committed by appellant, the peculiar circumstances of the case led to the filing of two cases, both involving illegal possession of firearms. The trial court convicted appellant of illegal possession in Criminal Case No. 92-1382 and both appellant and accused of the crime of illegal possession in its aggravated form under Criminal Case No. 92-1384. However, the passage of Republic Act No. 8294,which lowered the penalties for illegal possession, has changed the legal scenario for appellant. Being beneficial to appellant who is not a habitual criminal, R.A. No. 8294 should be considered in his favor. Under Section 1, third paragraph of R.A. No. 8294, and as interpreted by the Court in People v. Molina and subsequent cases,if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, only the offense of homicide or murder is committed, and the use of the unlicensed firearm should be considered as an aggravating circumstance. An examination of the allegations in the Information reveals that all the elements of homicide were sufficiently alleged and proven during trial. However, the Information did not allege any of the circumstances which would qualify the crime to murder. Hence, appellant can only be convicted of the crime of homicide. People vs. Taguba On August 10, 1996 and prior thereto, at Brgy. Maitim, Municipality of Bay, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused above-named being then the stepfather and guardian and while armed with a bolo, by means of force, violence and intimidation and with lewd designs, did then and there wilfully,
Image of page 48
Image of page 49

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 68 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • Ulysses, Appellate court, Legal burden of proof, Trial court, Rights of the accused

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture