You are on page 1of 10

RA 8294


GR NO. 136149-51,
Sept. 19, 2000
A search warrant was issued against appellant Ladjaalam. The authorities, led by SPO2 Felipe Gaganting, Chief of the
Anti-Vice/Narcotics Unit of Zamboanga, conducted a briefing as to the service of the warrant. Dela Pena was assigned as
presentor of the warrant while Lacastesantos and Rivera were designated to conduct the search.
They then headed to the house of appellant. When they were close to the vicinity, they were met by rapid burst of
gunfire coming from the second floor of the house. There they saw appellant Ladjaalam firing at them with an M14 rifle.
After taking cover from the concrete fence, the police were able to enter the door of the extension building. Inside
the sala, Lacastesantos and Mirasolsaw 2 old women together with a young girl and 3 children. One of the old women brought
the children to the second floor.
Lacastesantos and Mirasol then proceeded to the second floor where they saw appellant firing at them earlier.
Appellant Ladjaalam saw the police going to the second floor so he escaped by jumping from the window and unto the roof of
the neighbour. He was later arrested after a brief chase at the back of his house.
The police then served the search warrant. They saw rifles with magazines and live ammunition including the M14
rifle which appellant used to fire upon them. They also saw drug paraphernalia and shabu.
For the defenses version, appellant raised the defense of alibi and denial. He also testified that the policemen killed
three persons during the said raid.
RTC ruled that the search warrant was void for violation of Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which requires
only 1 specific offense for the issuance of a search warrant. However, he ruled on the validity of the arrest of appellant
Ladjaalam because the latter fired upon the police when they were about to serve the void warrant.
Furthermore, RTC found appellant Ladjaalam guilty for maintaining a drug den, found him guilty of direct assault with
attempted homicide, and found him guilty of illegal possession of firearms.
W/N appellant Ladjaalam is guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms
No. "If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
A simple reading of RA 8294 thereof shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there
can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the "other crime" is murder or homicide, illegal
possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple
attempted homicide was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms.
Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of two separate offenses of illegal possession of firearms and direct
assault with attempted homicide. Moreover, since the crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal
possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance.
Celino vs. CA
G.R. No. 170562
June 29, 2007

Petitioner was caught in possession of an armalite rifle outside his home. The offense was committed during the period of
COMELEC gun ban. When ask to show permit authorizing him to possess a gun outside his house, petitioner cannot produce

Two separate Information were filed against the petitioner, Angel Celino: one for violation of the Comelec gun ban; the other,
for Illegal Possession of Firearm under R.A. 8294. After pleading not guilty to the former, he filed a Motion to Quash on the
latter contending that he cannot be prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms x xx if he was also charged of having
committed another crime of *sic+ violating the Comelec gun ban under the same set of facts x xx.

Whether or not petitioner can be charge for both offenses

Held: Yes
Ruling against the petitioner, the High Court explained that he can be convicted of illegal possession of firearms, provided no
other crime was committed by the person arrested. The word committed taken in its ordinary sense, and in light of the
Constitutional presumption of innocence, necessarily implies a prior determination of guilt by final conviction resulting from
successful prosecution or voluntary admission.

If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered
as an aggravating circumstance.
"If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection,
sedition, or attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection,
sedition, or attempted coup d'etat."

In the present case, however, petitioner has only been accused of committing a violation of the COMELEC gun ban. An
accusation is not synonymous with guilt, there is yet no showing that petitioner did in fact commit the other crime charged.
Consequently, the proviso does not yet apply. Ergo he can be charge of both offenses.

In sum, when the other offense involved is one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, any information for illegal possession of
firearm should be quashed because the illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense,
either considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection,
sedition or attempted coup detat. Conversely, when the other offense involved is not one of those enumerated under R.A.
8294, then the separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted.
G.R. No. L-35156
November 20, 1981
At about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 24, 1971, the deceased, PC Lt. Guillermo Masana together with PC soldier Virgilio
Fidel, Philippine Coast Guard serviceman Ricardo Ligsa and Patrolman Felix Mojica of Indang, Cavite, was having lunch inside a
restaurant in front of the Indang market. While they were eating, they saw, through the glass panel of the restaurant, appellant
outside the restaurant blowing his whistle. Their attention having been drawn to what appellant was doing, Lt. Masana then in
civilian clothing, accompanied by PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, went out of the restaurant, approached appellant and asked the
latter, after Identifying himself as a PC officer, whether the gun that was tucked in his waist had a license. Instead of answering
the question of Lt. Masana appellant moved one step backward and attempted to draw his gun. PC soldier Virgilio Fidel
immediately grabbed appellant's gun from appellant's waist and gave it to Lt. Masana After that, Lt. Masana told the appellant
to go inside the restaurant. PC soldier Virgilio Fidel followed. Lt. Masana and the appellant occupied a separate table about one
and one-half (1 1/2) meters from the table of Lt. Masana's three companions Fidel, Ligsa and Mojica. After the two were
already seated, Lt. Masana placed appellant's gun on the table. After that Lt. Masana pulled out a piece of coupon bond paper
from his pocket and wrote thereon the receipt for the gun, and after signing it, he asked appellant to countersign the same, but
appellant refused to do so. Instead, he asked Lt. Masana to return the gun to him. Lt. Masana rejected appellant's plea, telling,
the latter that they would talk the matter over in the municipal building of Indang, Cavite. When Lt. Masana was about to stand
up, appellant suddenly pulled out a double-bladed dagger and with it he stabbed Lt. Masana several times, on the chest and
stomach causing his death several hours thereafter.
While the stabbing incident was taking place, the three companions of Lt. Masana PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Coast Guard
Ricardo Ligsa and policeman Felix Mojica who were all seated at a separate table about one and one-half (1 1/2) meters
away from that occupied by the accused and Lt. Masana stood up to assist Lt. Masana but Chief of Police Primo Panaligan of
Indang, Cavite, who happened to be taking his lunch in the same restaurant, was quicker than any of them in going near the
combatants and embraced and/or grabbed the accused from behind, and thereafter wrested the dagger from the accused-
appellant. Immediately thereafter, the Chief of Police brought the accused to the municipal building of Indang, Cavite, while the
companions of Lt. Masana brought the latter to the V. Luna Hospital in Quezon City where he expired several hours later as a
result of the stab wounds inflicted by the accused.
Whether or not the crime committed was murder or homicide merely or murder or homicide complexed with assault upon an
agent of authority.
The appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide aggravated by contempt for or insult to a public authority or
disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank.
While the evidence definitely demonstrated that appellant knew because the victim, who was in civilian clothing, told him that
he was an agent of a person in authority; he cannot be convicted of the complex crime of homicide with assault upon an agent
of a person in authority, for the simple reason that the information does not allege the fact that the accused then knew that,
before or at the time of the assault, the victim was an agent of a person in authority. The information simply alleges that
appellant did attack and stab PC Lt. Guillermo Masana while the latter was in the performance of his official duties. Such an
allegation cannot be an adequate substitute for the essential averment to justify a conviction of the complex crime, which
necessarily requires the imposition of the maximum period of the penalty prescribed for the graver offense. Like a qualifying
circumstance, such knowledge must be expressly and specifically averred in the information; otherwise, in the absence of such
allegation, the required knowledge, like a qualifying circumstance, although proven, would only be appreciated as a generic
aggravating circumstance. Applying this principle, the attack on the victim, who was known to the appellant as a peace officer,
could be considered only as aggravating, being "in contempt or with insult to the public authorities," or as an "insult or in
disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank.
It is essential that the accused must have knowledge that the person attacked was a person in authority or his agent in the
exercise of his duties, because the accused must have the intention to offend, injure, or assault the offended party as a person
in authority or agent of a person in authority.
The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be appreciated because it is obvious that the victim, PC. Lt. Masana
Identified himself as a PC officer to the accused who is merely a member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and therefore inferior both
in rank and social status to the victim.
The term "rank" should be given its plain, ordinary meaning, and as such, refers to a high social position or standing as a grade
in the armed forces; or to a graded official standing or social position or station; or to the order or place in which said officers
are placed in the army and navy in relation to others; or to the designation or title of distinction conferred upon an officer in
order to fix his relative position in reference to other officers in matters of privileges, precedence, and sometimes of command
or by which to determine his pay and emoluments as in the case of army staff officers; or to a grade or official standing, relative
position in civil or social life, or in any scale of comparison, status, grade, including its grade, status or scale of comparison
within a position.
If the accused herein were charged with the complex crime of murder with assault against an agent of a person in authority,
and not merely murder, then the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank or contempt of or insult to public authority
cannot be appreciated as aggravating because either circumstance is inherent in the charge of assault against a person in
authority or an agent of a person in authority. But in the case at bar, the appellant is accused of murder only. Consequently,
either aggravating circumstance should be considered in the imposition of the penalty.

G.R. No. L-19491
August 30, 1968
Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation of persons. The rationale behind this
pronouncement is that this class of robbery could be committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the
home. Morada is inherent only in crimes which could be committed in no other place than in the house of another, such as
trespass and robbery in an inhabited house.
The accused Apduhan, together with his co-accused RodulfoHuiso and Felipe Quimson, pleaded guilty to a second amended
information which recites:.
The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses ApolonioApduhan, Jr., alias Junior, RodulfoHuiso and Felipe
Quimson of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, committed as follows:
That on or about the 23rd day of May, 1961, at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, in the Municipality of
Mabini, Province of Bohol, Philippines, the above-named accused and five (5) other persons whose true
names are not yet known (they are presently known only with their aliases of BernabeMiano, Rudy, Angel-
Angi, Romeo and Tony) and who are still at large (they will be charged in separate information or
informations as soon as they are arrested and preliminary proceedings in Crim. Case No. 176 completed
before the Justice of the Peace Court), all of them armed with different unlicensed firearms, daggers, and
other deadly weapons, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with intent of gain, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter, by means of violence, the dwelling house of the spouses
HonoratoMiano and Antonia Miano, which was also the dwelling house of their children, the spouses
Geronimo Miano and Herminigilda de Miano; and, once inside the said dwelling house, the above-named
accused with their five (5) other companions, did attack, hack and shoot Geronimo Miano and another
person by the name of Norberto Aton, who happened to be also in the said dwelling house, thereby
inflicting upon the said two (2) persons physical injuries which caused their death; and thereafter the same
accused and their five (5) other companions, did take and carry way from said dwelling house cash money
amounting to Three Hundred Twenty-two Pesos (P322.00), Philippine Currency, belonging to
HonoratoMiano and Geronimo Miano, to the damage and prejudice of the said HonoratoMiano and the
heirs of the deceased Geronimo Miano in the sum of Three Hundred Twenty-two Pesos (P322.00) with
respect to the amount robbed, and also to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of deceased Geronimo
Miano and Norberto Aton by reason of the death of these two persons.
Act committed contrary to the provisions of Art. 294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code with the special
aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a band with the use of unlicensed firearms (Art.
296, Rev. Penal Code), and other aggravating circumstances, as follows:
1. That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended parties without any provocation from the
2. That nighttime was purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime; and.
3. That advantage was taken of superior strength, accused and their companions, who were fully armed,
being numerically superior to the offended parties who were unarmed and defenseless.

Whether aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present
YES. While an unqualified plea of guilty is mitigating, it at the same time constitutes an admission of all the material
facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances therein recited. The four aggravating circumstances
are (1) band; (2) dwelling; (3) nighttime; and (4) abuse of superior strength. The prosecution does not need to prove the sai d
three circumstances (all alleged in the second amended information) since the accused by his plea of guilty, has supplied the
requisite proof.
The settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation of persons, like the offense at
bar. The rationale behind this pronouncement is that this class of robbery could be committed without the necessity of
transgressing the sanctity of the home. Morada is inherent only in crimes which could be committed in no other place than in
the house of another, such as trespass and robbery in an inhabited house. This Court in People vs. Pinca, citing People vs.
Valdez, ruled that the "circumstances (of dwelling and scaling) were certainly not inherent in the crime committed, because,
the crime being robbery with violence or intimidation against persons (specifically, robbery with homicide) the authors thereof
could have committed it without the necessity of violating or scaling the domicile of their victim." CuelloCalon opines that the
commission of the crime in another's dwelling shows greater perversity in the accused and produces greater alarm.


G.R. No. L-30449
October 31, 1979
The legal verdict hinges on the testimony of the lone eyewitness for the prosecution, Mrs. Corazon DioquinoPaterno,
sister of the deceased, ApolonioDioquino, Jr.
Before the incident which gave rise to this case, Corazon's husband informed her that he saw Apolonio engaged in a
drinking spree with his gang in front of an establishment known as Bill's Place at M. de la Cruz Street. Pasay City. Corazon
surmised that her husband must have been painting the town red ("nag good time") in that same place. Upon learning this
information from her husband, Corazon obtained permission to leave the house at 3:00 a.m. so she could fetch her brother. At
that time, she had not been aware that Apolonio was in Pasay City; she had been of the belief that he was with his family in
Pampanga. She went to fetch him because she wanted him to escape the untoward influence of his gang. In explaining the
rationale for her noctural mission, she employed in her sworn statement the following language: "DahilitongsiJunior ay
meronnakamingnabalitaannanaaakay ng barkadaniyasapaggawa ng hindimabuti."
On her way, as she rounded the corner of P.C. Santos Street, Corazon saw her brother fleeing a group of about seven
persons, including the two accused, Antonio Garcia and Reynaldo Arviso. She recognized the two accused because they
wereformergangmates of her brother; in fact, she knew them before the incident by their aliases of "Tony Manok" and "Rene
Bisugo, " respectively.
Corazon saw that the chase was led by the two accused, with Antonio carrying a long sharp instrument. When she
ventured to look from where she was hiding, about 20 meters away, she saw the group catch up with her brother and maltreat
him. Some beat him with pieces of wood, others boxed him. Immediately afterwards, the group scampered away in different
directions. Antonio was left behind. He was sitting astride the prostrate figure of Apolonio, stabbing the latter in the back with
his long knife. Corazon was not able to observe where Antonio later fled, for she could hardly bear to witness the scene.
When Corazon mustered the courage to approach her brother, she saw that he was bathed in a pool of his own

WON nocturnity (nighttime) is an aggravating circumstances?

YES. The offense took place at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. It may therefore be said that it was committed at night,
which covers the period from sunset to sunrise, according to the New Civil Code, Article 13. Is this basis for finding that
nocturnity is aggravating? The Revised Penal Code, Article 14, provides that it is an aggravating circumstance when the crime is
committed in the nighttime, whenever nocturnity may facilitate the commission of the offense. There are two tests for
nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance: the objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitates the
commission of the offense; and the subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely sought by
the offender. These two tests should be applied in the alternative.
In this case, the subjective test is not passed because there is no showing that the accused purposely sought the cover
of night time. Next, we proceed and apply the objective test, to determine whether nocturnity facilitated the killing of the
victim. A group of men were engaged in a drinking spree, in the course of which one of them fled, chased by seven others. The
criminal assault on the victim at 3:00 a.m. was invited by nocturnal cover, which handicapped the view of eyewitnesses and
encouraged impunity by persuading the malefactors that it would be difficult to determine their Identity because of the
darkness and the relative scarcity of people in the streets. There circumstances combine to pass the objective test, and the
Court found that nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitated the commission of the offense. Nocturnity enticed those with
the lust to kill to follow their impulses with the false courage born out of the belief that they could not be readily Identified.

People vs Escote
G.R. No. 140756
April 4, 2003

The accused Juan Gonzales Escote Jr. together with Victor Acuyan boarded a bus. One of the passengers in the said
bus is SPO1 Jose Manio Jr. who was seated at the rear portion of the bus and on his way home to Angeles City. When the bus
was travelling along the highway the accused suddenly stood up and announced a hold up. They fired their gun upward. The
two then accosted the passengers and divested them of their money and valuables. Then, the two went to Manio. They took his
ID as well as his service gun. They shot him. Manio sustained six entrance wounds. The robbery was over in 25 minutes. The
accused were convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide.

Whether the aggravating circumstance of treachery is present.

Yes. There is treachery when the following essential elements are present (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was
not in a position to defend himself and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means and methods
or form of attacks employed by him. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the
unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby insuring its commission without risk to
himself. In this case, the accused were armed with hand guns. They first disarmed the deceased and then shot him. When the
victim was shot he was defenseless. Treachery is applied in the constituent crime of homicide.


G.R. No. 125633
December 9, 1999

On August 26, 1995 at around 12:00 o'clock midnight, while asleep in the residence of a friend, Rolando Alfanta,
whom Nita Fernandez, had not seen before, suddenly entered the house where she was sleeping, pulled her and boxed her jaw
and put his hand on her mouth, and told her that if she will not obey him, he will kill her. She was forced to climb a fence.
Because of fear, as he was holding a bolo, she followed. Alfanta instructed her to go to the vacant house and she was told to
undress, she did because of fear. Thereafter, he molested her. She was instructed to lie down and he then inserted his genitals to
her vagina. After that, she was told to lie face down, she complied. Thereafter, he inserted his penis to her anus. After inserting
his penis, he instructed her to turn around face up, he inserted his fingers to her private part. Then after all these acts, he told
her to lie beside him as he was going to take a rest. Noticing that Alfanta was already sleeping, she suddenly took the bolo and
hacked him several times. She went to the police station to report the incident.

Whether or not nighttime and ignominy be appreciated as aggravating circumstances


Yes. The silence and darkness of the night has been taken advantage by the accused in facilitating the commission of
the crime by insuring the offender's immunity from capture and by ensuring his impunity from his illegal acts.

There was ignominy because the appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior, female inferior,
but also the same position as dogs do i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims there was no ignominy because The
studies of many experts in the matter have shown that this position is not novel and has repeatedly and often been resorted
to by couples in the act of copulation. (Brief, p. 24.) This may well be if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners but
not otherwise (People v. Saylan). The means employed added ignominy to the natural effects of the act as it added disgrace to
the injury caused by the crime.

RTC decision was affirmed but modified penalty by lowering it from death to reclusion perpetua.