Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO NEPOMUCENO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 103613 2001-02-23	PEOPLE v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
P.D. 1866 was amended by R.A. No. 8294,[47] which provides that if an unlicensed firearm is used in murder or homicide, such use of unlicensed firearm shall be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance and no longer considered as a separate offense,[48] which means that only one offense shall be punished - murder or homicide. However, this law cannot apply retroactively because it will result in the imposition on Tangan of the maximum period of the penalty. Moreover, under Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,[49] the aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information. Being favorable, this new rule can be given retroactive effect as they are applicable to pending cases.[50] In any case, Tangan was acquitted of the illegal possession case.
	GR Nos. 132482-83 2001-02-20	PEOPLE v. ELISEO TIO Y TORCUATO BELLOSILLO, J.
In two (2) separate Informations, accused-appellant was charged with murder and use of unlicensed firearm. Pursuant however to the amendment to the second paragraph of Sec. 1 of P.D. 1866 by RA 8294, the use of unlicensed firearm in the commission of murder or homicide is treated as an aggravating circumstance. As such, the illegal possession of unlicensed firearm is not separately punished.[9]
	GR Nos. 124384-86 2000-01-28	PEOPLE v. ROMENCIANO 'OMENG' RICAFRANCA 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."