G.R. No. 133007. November 29, 2000.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO ADAME, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On January 25, 1997, in Bangued, Abra, accused-appellant Mario Adame entered the yard of Ireneo Jimenez, Jr. While holding a homemade shotgun wrapped in a jacket, Adame repeatedly asked Ireneo about the whereabouts of his brother. After Ireneo stood up from untying a sack, Adame pointed the shotgun at him and fired, causing his instantaneous death. Adame then aimed at the victim’s wife, Mercy, who screamed and fled. Two eyewitnesses, Mercy Jimenez and Zenaida Viado, positively identified Adame as the shooter.
Following the shooting, Adame fled in an owner-type jeep but later crashed. A witness saw him holding a long firearm at the crash site. Subsequently, a homemade 12-gauge shotgun was recovered from the vehicle. A certification from the Firearms and Explosive Section confirmed that Adame was not a licensed firearm holder and that the recovered shotgun was unlicensed. The Regional Trial Court convicted Adame of aggravated illegal possession of firearm under Presidential Decree No. 1866, sentencing him to death and ordering him to pay damages to the victim’s heirs.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellant of the aggravated form of illegal possession of firearm under P.D. No. 1866.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction for aggravated illegal possession of firearm. The legal logic hinges on the principle that when an act constitutes both a violation of a special law (like P.D. 1866) and the Revised Penal Code, the latter should generally apply if it prescribes a heavier penalty. At the time of the offense, the penalty for aggravated illegal possession under P.D. 1866 was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. In contrast, the penalty for homicide under the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. The Court applied the rule that when the same act results in two offenses—illegal possession of firearm and homicide—the accused should be prosecuted for the graver crime, which is homicide, to avoid double jeopardy.
The Court found that the killing constituted homicide, not murder, as treachery was not sufficiently proven to qualify the crime. The act of shooting the victim, who was unarmed and in a defenseless position while standing up, was sudden, but the requisite deliberate adoption of means to ensure execution without risk was not clearly established. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. With the aggravating circumstance of treachery and no mitigating circumstances, the penalty is imposed in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty is an indeterminate sentence of ten years and one day of prision mayor maximum, as minimum, to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum. The Court also modified the civil awards, granting P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P37,041.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P300,000.00 for loss of earning capacity.