This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-10-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We agree with appellant's acquittal of the charge of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm. With the effectivity of Republic Act No. 8294[29] on 6 July 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder is no longer treated as a separate offense, but only as a special aggravating circumstance.[30] Thus, where an accused used an unlicensed firearm in committing homicide or murder, he may no longer be charged with what used to be two separate offenses of homicide or murder under the Revised Penal Code and qualified illegal possession of firearms used in homicide or murder under Presidential Decree No. 1866.[31] Although the killing was committed on 27 January 1997, being favorable to appellant who was not shown to be a habitual delinquent, the amendatory law was properly given retroactive application pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.[32] Thus, insofar as it spared appellant a separate conviction for illegal possession of firearms, Republic Act No. 8294 has to be given retroactive application in Criminal Case No. 97-13707. | |||||
|
2003-06-18 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Under Republic Act No. 8294, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of murder is a special aggravating circumstance. Moreover, the lack of a license to possess the firearm is an essential element of the said circumstance and must be properly alleged in the information and proven during trial. In this case, however, the use of an unlicensed firearm by the appellant cannot be considered as a special aggravating circumstance because: (a) it was not alleged in the information as mandated by Rule 110, Section 8 of Article 10 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and proved by the prosecution;[64] and (b) the crime was committed on October 5, 1995 before the effectivity of Rep. Act 8294 and case law is that the new rule shall be applied retroactively since the same is favorable to the accused.[65] | |||||