PEOPLE vs CASTILLO FACTS: JULIAN CASTILLO y LUMAYRO was charged with Murder and Illegal Possession o !

irear"s in two #$% se&arate In or"ation 'e (illed his co)wor(er #construction e"&loyees o a gaisano "all% Illegal &ossession o irear"s they saw the accused on *oard a +essel *ound or Ce*u, -hen they *oarded the +essel. A(oy &ositi+ely identi ied the accused to the &olice as the assailant, The accused atte"&ted to esca&e when the &olice identi ied the"sel+es *ut the &olice caught u& with hi", U&on in/uiry. the accused denied co"&licity in the (illing o A*awag, The &olice ound in his &ossession a ,01 cali*er hand"ade re+ol+er. three #0% e"&ty shells and three #0% li+e a""unitions, !urther in/uiry re+ealed that the accused owned the gun *ut had no license to &ossess it, The &olice then too( the accused into custody and charged hi" or the "urder o A*awag and or illegal &ossession o irear", con+icted o 'o"icide. as the &rosecution ailed to &ro+e the alleged /uali ying circu"stances o e+ident &re"editation and treachery. and o Illegal Possession o !irear". aggra+ated *y ho"icide,

ISSU23 -ON the accused has no license to carry the irear")))4 NO,"ere &ossession. *y itsel . is not an o ense, '2L53 -ith the &assage o Re&u*lic Act No, 1$67 on June 8. 966:. the use o an unlicensed irear" in "urder or ho"icide is now considered. not as a se&arate cri"e. *ut "erely a s&ecial aggra+ating circu"stance, R,A, 1$67 also &ro+ided that i ho"icide or "urder is co""itted with the use o an unlicensed irear". such use shall *e considered as a s&ecial aggra+ating circu"stance, This a"end"ent has two #$% i"&lications3 irst.the use o an unlicensed irear" in the co""ission o ho"icide or "urder shall not *e treated as a se&arate o ense. *ut "erely as a s&ecial aggra+ating circu"stance; second. as only a single cri"e #ho"icide or "urder with the aggra+ating circu"stance o illegal &ossession o irear"% is co""itted under the law. only one &enalty shall *e i"&osed on the accused, considering that the &ro+isions o the a"endatory law are a+ora*le to herein a&&ellant. the new law should *e retroacti+ely a&&lied in the case at *ar, It was thus error or the trial court to con+ict the a&&ellant o two #$% se&arate o enses, cri"e or which the a&&ellant "ay *e charged is ho"icide. aggra+ated *y illegal &ossession o irear". the correct deno"ination or the cri"e. and not illegal &ossession o irear". aggra+ated *y ho"icide as ruled *y the trial court. as it is the or"er o ense which aggra+ates the cri"e o ho"icide under the a"endatory law, Two #$% re/uisites are necessary to esta*lish illegal &ossession o irear"s3 irst. the e<istence o the su*=ect irear". and second. the act that the accused who owned or &ossessed the gun did not ha+e the

corres&onding license or &er"it to carry it outside his residence, The onus &ro*andi o esta*lishing these ele"ents as alleged in the In or"ation lies with the &rosecution, The irst ele"ent )) the e<istence o the irear" )) was indu*ita*ly esta*lished *y the &rosecution, no &roo was adduced *y the &rosecution to esta*lish the second ele"ent o the cri"e. i,e,. that the a&&ellant was not licensed to &ossess the irear", This negati+e act constitutes an essential ele"ent o the cri"e as "ere &ossession. *y itsel . is not an o ense, The lac( o a license or &er"it should ha+e *een &ro+ed either *y the testi"ony or certi ication o a re&resentati+e o the PNP !irear"s and 2<&losi+es Unit that the accused was not a licensee o the su*=ect irear">97? or that the ty&e o irear" in+ol+ed can *e law ully &ossessed only *y certain "ilitary &ersonnel,>9@? Indeed. i the "eans o &ro+ing a negati+e act is e/ually within the control o each &arty. the *urden o &roo is on the &arty a+erring said negati+e act, As the In or"ation alleged that the a&&ellant &ossessed an unlicensed gun. the &rosecution is duty)*ound to &ro+e this allegation, It is the &rosecution who has the *urden o esta*lishing *eyond reasona*le dou*t all the ele"ents o the cri"e charged. consistent with the *asic &rinci&le that an accused is &resu"ed innocent until &ro+en guilty, Thus. i the non)e<istence o so"e act is a constituent ele"ent o the cri"e. the onus is u&on the State to &ro+e this negati+e allegation o non)e<istence, although the a&&ellant hi"sel ad"itted that he had no license or the gun reco+ered ro" his &ossession. his ad"ission will not relie+e the &rosecution o its duty to esta*lish *eyond reasona*le dou*t the a&&ellantAs lac( o license or &er"it to &ossess the gun, Not *eing a =udicial ad"ission. said state"ent *y accused)a&&ellant does not &ro+e *eyond reasona*le dou*t the second ele"ent o illegal &ossession o irear", It does not e+en esta*lish a &ri"a acie case, It "erely *olsters the case or the &rosecution *ut does not stand as &roo o the act o a*sence or lac( o a license, Modi ied