This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-09-21 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The penalty prescribed for violation of the provisions of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, the medium of the penalty prescribed by the law.[41] Notwithstanding that RA 7610 is a special law, petitioner may enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.[42] Since the penalty provided in RA 7610 is taken from the range of penalties in the Revised Penal Code, it is covered by the first clause of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.[43] Thus, he is entitled to a maximum term which should be within the range of the proper imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period (ranging from 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years) and a minimum term to be taken within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the law: prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period (ranging from 8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months). | |||||
|
2001-03-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under P.D. 1866, the essence of the crime is the accused's lack of license or permit to carry or possess firearm, ammunition, or explosive. Possession by itself is not prohibited by law.[13] In prosecutions for illegal possession of firearm, the element of absence of license to possess the firearm may be established through the testimony of or a certification from a representative of the Firearms and Explosives Bureau[14]of the Philippine National Police (FEB-PNP), attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm.[15] In this case, a representative of the FEB-PNP testified that accused-appellant was not a holder of any gun license.[16] Moreover, a certification[17]to that effect was presented to corroborate his testimony. These pieces of evidence suffice to establish the second element of the offense of possession of unlicensed firearms.[18] However, in a vain attempt to exculpate himself, accused-appellant presented for the first time an alleged firearm license, which was described as "Annex 2" of his petition. Accused-appellant's counsel admitted that said document was not presented below "for some reason."[19] Whatever those reasons are, he did not specify. The document, however, is dubious. It is too late in the day for accused-appellant to proffer this very vital piece of evidence which might exculpate him. First, the reception of evidence is best addressed to the trial court because it entails questions of fact. It should be emphasized that this Court is not a trier of facts.[20] Second, the document marked as "Annex 2" of the petition in G.R. No. 123943 is not the license referred to, but an order of the trial court resetting the date of arraignment.[21] Third, there is attached to the petition a firearm license[22] which is a mere photocopy and, as such, cannot be appreciated by this Court. Indeed, considering that this was the one piece of evidence which could spell accused-appellant's acquittal of the unlicensed firearm charge, and assuming that, as shown in the face of the license, it was issued on October 7, 1992, there should be no reason for its non-production during the trial. Fourth, and most importantly, the genuineness of the purported license becomes all the more suspect in view of the Certification issued by the FEO-PNP that accused-appellant was not a licensed firearm holder. | |||||