This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-06-26 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In interpreting the same provision, the trial court reasoned that such provision is "silent as to whether it is generic or qualifying."[68] Thus, it ruled that "when the law is silent, the same must be interpreted in favor of the accused."[69] Since a generic aggravating circumstance is more favorable to petitioner compared to a qualifying aggravating circumstance, as the latter changes the nature of the crime and increase the penalty thereof by degrees, the trial court proceeded to declare that the use of an unlicensed firearm by the petitioner is to be considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance.[70] This interpretation is erroneous, since we already held in several cases that with the passage of Republic Act No. 8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not a generic aggravating circumstance.[71] Republic Act No. 8294 applies to the instant case since it took effect before the commission of the crimes in 21 April 1998. Therefore, the use of an unlicensed firearm by the petitioner in the instant case should be designated and appreciated as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not merely a generic aggravating circumstance. | |||||
|
2006-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| 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. In interpreting the same provision, the trial court reasoned that such provision is "silent as to whether it is generic or qualifying."[65] Thus, it ruled that "when the law is silent, the same must be interpreted in favor of the accused."[66] Since a generic aggravating circumstance is more favorable to petitioner compared to a qualifying aggravating circumstance, as the latter changes the nature of the crime and increase the penalty thereof by degrees, the trial court proceeded to declare that the use of an unlicensed firearm by the petitioner is to be considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance.[67] This interpretation is erroneous since we already held in several cases that with the passage of Republic Act. No. 8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not a generic aggravating circumstance.[68] Republic Act No. 8294 applies to the instant case since it took effect before the commission of the crimes in 21 April 1998. Therefore, the use of an unlicensed firearm by the petitioner in the instant case should be designated and appreciated as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not merely a generic aggravating circumstance. | |||||
|
2002-10-18 |
Puno, J. |
||||
| i.e., the killing of a person with the use of an unlicensed firearm, under P.D. No. 1866,[52] is death. On June 6, 1997, however, Congress approved Republic Act No. 8294.[53] It 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 | |||||
|
2000-01-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| With respect to the charge of illegal possession of firearms, we acquit accused-appellants Edson and Georgie Ricafranca, following the Court's ruling in "People vs. Bergante"[20] as applied once again in the more recent case of "People vs. Guillermo Nepomuceno, Jr."[21] In "Bergante" and "Nepomuceno," the Court gave retroactive effect to the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 8294 (which took effect on June 6, 1997)[22] on P.D. No. 1866 to the effect 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 and shall no longer be separately punished. The "Nepomuceno" case reiterated the explanation in "Bergante," to wit:"The violation of P.D. No. 1866 should have been punished separately conformably with our ruling in People vs. Quijada. Nevertheless, fortunately for appellant Rex Bergante, P.D. No. 1866 was recently amended by Republic Act No 8294, otherwise known as 'An Act Amending the Provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as Amended.' The third paragraph of Section 1 of said Act 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.' In short, only one offense should be punished, viz., either homicide or murder, and the use of the unlicensed firearm should only be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Being favorable to Rex Bergante, this provision may be given retroactive effect pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, he not being a habitual criminal." | |||||