GR 112090; (October, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112090 October 26, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. APOLINAR LAZARO y SERVANIA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Apolinar Lazaro was charged with illegal possession of firearms under P.D. 1866. The prosecution evidence established that on May 5, 1991, police officers in Naga City responded to reports of a shooting. They intercepted a vehicle driven by Lazaro, which was transporting a wounded man to the hospital. Upon confrontation at the Bicol Regional Hospital, Major Tuazon saw Lazaro pull a .38 caliber revolver from his waist and drop it inside the vehicle. The police recovered the firearm, which contained six empty shells. A certification from the Firearms and Explosives Office confirmed that Lazaro was not a licensed firearm holder.
Lazaro presented a different version, claiming the firearm belonged to a companion, Ricardo Ronquillo. He testified that during a drinking session, Ronquillo drew the gun and pointed it at him. A struggle ensued, shots were fired, and his nephew was wounded. Lazaro claimed he drove his nephew to the hospital, unsure of what happened to the gun afterward. The trial court rejected his defense, convicted him of illegal possession, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. A separate case for homicide involving the same incident was filed and tried.
ISSUE
Whether accused-appellant Apolinar Lazaro is guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Lazaro and DISMISSED the case. The ruling was based on the application of Republic Act No. 8294 , which amended P.D. 1866 and took effect before the Court’s decision. Under the new law, illegal possession of firearms is absorbed as a special aggravating circumstance if the unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of another crime, such as homicide or murder. The legal logic is that an accused cannot be convicted separately for both illegal possession and the other crime if the firearm was the instrument used.
Here, a separate information for homicide (Criminal Case No. 91-3487) was filed against Lazaro for the same shooting incident, and he was convicted therein. The Court found that the unlicensed firearm was used to commit that homicide. Applying R.A. 8294, the illegal possession is not an independent crime but is considered as an aggravating circumstance in the homicide case. To convict Lazaro separately for illegal possession under the old law (P.D. 1866) would be to apply a law that is no longer in effect and, more importantly, would impose a harsher penalty not intended by the new, beneficial legislation. The Court emphasized that penal laws which are favorable to the accused, like R.A. 8294, have retroactive application. Therefore, a separate conviction for illegal possession cannot stand.