GR 153650; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153650 August 31, 2006
FIDEL V. AMARILLO, JR., Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and RAUL HERMO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Fidel V. Amarillo, Jr. was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm under P.D. 1866 and Frustrated Homicide. The charges stemmed from an altercation at a restaurant on September 3, 1994, arising from a dispute over an electric fan. The prosecution alleged that after a verbal exchange, Amarillo shot private respondent Raul Hermo in the forehead without warning, inflicting a serious injury. The defense claimed it was a member of Hermo’s group who pointed a gun, which accidentally discharged during a struggle. The Regional Trial Court convicted Amarillo of both charges.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the judgment. It sustained the conviction for Frustrated Homicile but held that the illegal possession and use of the unlicensed firearm should not be punished as a separate offense. Applying Republic Act No. 8294 , which amended P.D. 1866, the appellate court ruled that the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder is merely considered as an aggravating circumstance. Since the crime committed was Frustrated Homicide, the separate conviction for illegal possession was set aside, and the use of the unlicensed firearm was instead treated as a generic aggravating circumstance.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied R.A. No. 8294 in modifying the petitioner’s conviction by considering the use of an unlicensed firearm merely as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of Frustrated Homicide.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic hinges on the proper application of R.A. No. 8294 , which took effect prior to the incident and amended P.D. 1866. The amendatory law explicitly provides that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there shall be no separate offense of illegal possession of firearm. The use of the unlicensed firearm shall instead be considered as an aggravating circumstance. The Court clarified that this rule applies not only to the consummated crimes of homicide or murder but also to their frustrated and attempted stages. Consequently, the trial court erred in convicting Amarillo separately for illegal possession. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the law by convicting him only of Frustrated Homicide and appreciating the use of the unlicensed firearm as a generic aggravating circumstance, which was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Supreme Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the lower courts, which established Amarillo’s guilt for Frustrated Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.