This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2001-10-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Thus, if an unlicensed firearm was used in the commission of murder or homicide, the possession of the same would simply be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Although the crime in this case was committed on August 19, 1996, R.A. No. 8294, which took effect on July 6, 1997, should be given retroactive effect it being more favorable to the accused.[27] Moreover, as held in People v. Valdez:[28] | |||||
|
2001-03-22 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| We do not agree with the contention of the Solicitor General that since a paltik is a homemade gun, is illegally manufactured as recognized in People vs. Fajardo, and cannot be issued a license or permit, it is no longer necessary to prove that it is unlicensed. This appears to be, at first blush, a very logical proposition. We cannot, however, yield to it because Fajardo did not say that paltiks can in no case be issued a license or a permit, and that proof that a firearm is a paltik dispenses with proof that it is unlicensed. The above ruling was reiterated in People vs. Evangelista,[43] Mallari vs. Court of Appeals,[44] People vs. De Vera, Sr.,[45] and People vs. Dorimon,[46] and People vs. P02 Rodel Samonte.[47] | |||||