VICENTE AGOTE Y MATOL, petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL F.

LORENZO, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 43, Manila and

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents

Petitioner Vicente Agote y Matol was earlier charged before the sala of respondent judge with Illegal Possession of Firearms under
Presidential Decree No. 1866[4] and violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826[5] (Gun Ban).

Eventually, in a decision dated May 18, 1999, the trial court rendered a judgment of conviction in both cases, separately sentencing
petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years eight
(8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, in accordance with PD. No. 1866 in Crim. Case No. 96-
149820 (illegal possession of firearm), and to a prison term of one (1) year in Crim. Case No. 96-149821 (violation of the
COMELEC Resolution on gun ban).

on June 6, 1997, Republic Act No. 8294[6] was approved into law.

Pointing out, among others, that the penalty for illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 has already been reduced by the
subsequent enactment of Rep. Act No. 8294, hence, the latter law, being favorable to him, should be the one applied in determining
his penalty for illegal possession of firearms, petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the May 18, 1999 decision of the trial court.

RTC- Republic Act 8294 did not so provide that it shall have a retroactive effect.
CA- a pure question of law cognizable by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: whether or not the unlicensed firearm should be actually used and discharged in the course of committing the other crime in
order that Sec. 1, Rep. Act No. 8294 will apply so that no separate crime of illegal possession of firearms may be charged.

HELD: the Court cannot but set aside petitioners conviction in Criminal Case No. 96-149820 for illegal possession of firearm since
another crime was committed at the same time. SEC. 1 RA 8294 there can be no separate offense of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition if there is another crime committed such as, in this case, that of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

ANGEL CELINO, SR., vs COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY, HON. DELANO

Two separate informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City charging petitioner with violation of Section 2(a) of
COMELEC Resolution No. 6446 (gun ban),[3] and Section 1, Paragraph 2 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8294[4] (illegal possession of firearm).
Prior to his arraignment in Criminal Case No. C-137-04, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash[8] contending that he cannot be prosecuted for illegal
possession of firearms.

ISSUE: WON THE MOTION TO QUASH SHOULD BE GRANTED

HELD: petitioner has only been accused of committing a violation of the COMELEC gun ban. As accusation is not synonymous with guilt, there is
yet no showing that petitioner did in fact commit the other crime charged.[35] Consequently, the proviso does not yet apply. 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,[40] or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup detat.

THERE SHOULD BE JUFGMENT OF CONVICTION.

ATTY. REYNANTE B. ORCEO, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

FACTS: Petitioner contends that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in including "airsoft guns and their replicas/imitations" in the definition of
"firearm" in Resolution No. 8714, since there is nothing in R.A. No. 7166 that mentions "airsoft guns
and their replicas/imitations." He asserts that the intendment of R.A. No. 7166 is that the term
"firearm" refers to real firearm in its common and ordinary usage. In support of this assertion, he
cites the Senate deliberation on the bill,3 which later became R.A. No. 7166, where it was clarified
that an unauthorized person caught carrying a firearm during the election period is guilty of an
election offense under Section 261 (q) of the Omnibus Election Code.

ISSUE: whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in including airsoft guns and
their replicas/imitations in the term "firearm" in Section 2 (b) of R.A. No. 8714.

HELD: The Court holds that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in including airsoft
guns and airguns in the term "firearm" in Resolution No. 8714 for purposes of the gun ban during the
election period, with the apparent objective of ensuring free, honest, peaceful and credible elections
this year. However, the replicas and imitations of airsoft guns and airguns are excluded from the
term "firearm" in Resolution No. 8714.]

LUZ S. ALMEDA, Petitioner

vs.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (MINDANAO) and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE

FACTS: In 2001, petitioner Luz S. Almeda, then Schools Division Superintendentwere charged
administratively and criminally before the Ombudsman, in connection with the alleged improper use
and disbursement of the Countrywide Development Fund (CDF). On May 25, 2010, petitioner sent a
letter of even date to the Ombudsman, seeking the early resolution of her motions.18 However, the
letter was not acted upon, as the handling Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer (GIPO), dela
Cruz-Likit, was then on official study leave and no GIPO was as yet assigned to the case.