GR 117033; (February, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 117033 . February 15, 2001.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAFAEL AVECILLA y MOBIDO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Rafael Avecilla was charged with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm under Presidential Decree No. 1866. The information alleged that on December 24, 1991, in Manila, he possessed a .38 caliber revolver without a license and, by reason of such possession, shot and killed Macario Afable, Jr. The prosecution established that Avecilla arrived at a basketball court, fired a gun in the air, later argued with a group including the victim, and then shot Afable at point-blank range. After a struggle for the weapon, a barangay tanod wrestled the gun from Avecilla, who fled. The victim died from his wounds. The Regional Trial Court convicted Avecilla of Qualified Illegal Possession and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether accused-appellant can be validly convicted of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm under P.D. No. 1866, given the subsequent enactment of Republic Act No. 8294 .
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and dismissed the case. The legal logic hinges on the retroactive application of a favorable penal law. While all elements of Qualified Illegal Possession under the old law (P.D. No. 1866) were proven—possession of an unlicensed firearm used to commit homicide—the governing law was amended by R.A. No. 8294 , which took effect on July 6, 1997. Under this new law, if murder or homicide is committed with an unlicensed firearm, the crime is no longer qualified illegal possession. Instead, the use of the unlicensed firearm is merely considered an aggravating circumstance in the homicide or murder case. Separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal possession are expressly disallowed.
Applying Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which mandates the retroactive effect of penal laws if favorable to the accused, R.A. No. 8294 applies to this case even though the crime was committed in 1991. Consequently, Avecilla cannot be convicted of Qualified Illegal Possession. Neither can he be convicted of simple illegal possession, as the law requires that no other crime be committed for that offense to stand alone. Most importantly, he cannot be convicted of homicide or murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance, as he was never charged with nor arraigned for those crimes. To do so would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him. Thus, the only legal recourse was to dismiss the case for Qualified Illegal Possession.