G.R. No. 142675. July 22, 2005 VICENTE AGOTE Y MATOL, Petitioners, vs.HON. MANUEL F. LOREN O, !

"#$%&%'( Ju&(#, RTC, )"*'+, 4-, M*'%l* *'& !EO!LE OF THE !HILI!!INE., Respondents. DECISION GARCIA, J./ In this appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, petitioner V%+#'0# A(o0# y M*0ol see!s to annul and set aside the followin" resolutions of the Court of #ppeals in CA1G.R. .! No. 22211U34, to wit$ %. R#$olu0%o' &*0#& .#50#67#" 14, 1222, % dis&issin" the Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuan'e of a (e&porary Restrainin" Order filed by the petitioner a"ainst the )onorable *anuel +. ,oren-o, Presidin" .ud"e, Re"ional (rial Court, *anila, /ran'h 40 for refusin" to retroa'tively apply in his favor Republi' #'t No. 1234 24 and, 2. R#$olu0%o' &*0#& F#7"u*"y 8, 2000,0 denyin" petitioner5s &otion for re'onsideration. #s 'ulled fro& the pleadin"s on re'ord, the followin" are the undisputed fa'tual ante'edents$ Petitioner 6i'ente #"ote y *atol was earlier 'har"ed before the sala of respondent 7ud"e with Ille"al Possession of +irear&s under Presidential De'ree No. %1884 and violation of CO*E,EC Resolution No. 2128 9:un /an;, do'!eted as Cri&inal Cases No. 38<%4312= and 38<%4312%, respe'tively, alle"edly 'o&&itted, as follows$ CRI*IN#, C#SE NO. 38<%4312= (hat on or about #pril 2>, %338 in the City of *anila, Philippines, the said a''used did then and there willfully, unlawfully, !nowin"ly have in possession and under his 'ustody and 'ontrol, One 9%; .01 'al. Rev. without serial no. with four 94; live bullets. ?ithout first havin" se'ured fro& the proper authorities the ne'essary li'ense therefor.

CON(R#R@ (O ,#?. CRI*IN#, C#SE NO. 38<%4312% (hat on or about #pril 2>, %338, in the City of *anila, Philippines, the said a''used did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and !nowin"ly have in his possession and under his 'ustody and 'ontrol one 9%; .01 'al. Rev. without serial nu&ber, with four 94; live a&&unitionAbullets in the 'ha&ber, by then and there 'arryin" the sa&e alon" 6. *apa EBt. Sta. *esa, this City, whi'h is a publi' pla'e on the aforesaid date whi'h is 'overed by an ele'tion period, without first se'urin" the written authority fro& the CO*E,EC, as provided for by the CO*E,EC Resolution No. 2121, in relation to R# No. >%88 9:un /an;. CON(R#R@ (O ,#?. On arrai"n&ent, petitioner pleaded CNot :uiltyC to both 'har"es. (hereafter, the two 92; 'ases were tried 7ointly. Eventually, in a de'ision dated *ay %1, %333, the trial 'ourt rendered a 7ud"&ent of 'onvi'tion in both 'ases, separately senten'in" petitioner to an indeter&inate penalty of ten 9%=; years and one 9%; day of prision mayor, as &ini&u&, to ei"hteen 9%1; years ei"ht 91; &onths and one 9%; day of reclusion temporal, as &aBi&u&, in a''ordan'e with PD. No. %188 in C"%6. C*$# No. 261142820 9ille"al possession of firear&;, and to a prison ter& of one 9%; year in C"%6. C*$# No. 261142821 9violation of the CO*E,EC Resolution on "un ban;. *eanwhile, on .une 8, %33>, Republi' #'t No. 1234 8 was approved into law. Pointin" out, a&on" others, that the penalty for ille"al possession of firear&s under P.D. No. %188 has already been redu'ed by the subseDuent ena't&ent of Rep. #'t No. 1234, hen'e, the latter law, bein" favorable to hi&, should be the one applied in deter&inin" his penalty for ille"al possession of firear&s, petitioner &oved for a re'onsideration of the *ay %1, %333 de'ision of the trial 'ourt. In its order dated .uly % , %333,> however, the trial 'ourt denied

petitioner5s &otion, sayin"$ ?hile the law 9R.#. 1234; is indeed favorable to the a''used and therefore should be &ade retroa'tive we are also "uided by #rt. 4 of the Civil Code whi'h states that laws shall have no retroa'tive effe't, unless the 'ontrary is provided. Republi' #'t 1234 did not so provide that it shall have a retroa'tive effe't. (he Supre&e Court li!ewise in the 'ase of Padilla vs. C# de'lared$ E(he trial 'ourt and the respondent 'ourt are bound to apply the "overnin" law at the ti&e of the appellant5s 'o&&ission of the offense for it is a rule that laws are repealed only by subseDuent ones. Indeed, it is the duty of 7udi'ial offi'ers to respe't and apply the law as it stands. (herefro&, petitioner went to the Court of #ppeals on a petition for certiorari with prayer for a te&porary restrainin" order, thereat do'!eted as CA1G.R. .! No. 22211U34. In the herein assailed "#$olu0%o' &*0#& .#50#67#" 14, 1222, 1 the appellate 'ourt dis&issed petitioner5s re'ourse on two 92; "rounds, to wit$ 9a; the re&edy of certiorari availed of by petitioner is i&proper sin'e he should have appealed fro& the .uly % , %333 order of the trial 'ourt4 and 9b; la'! of 7urisdi'tion, as the issue involved is a pure Duestion of law 'o"ni-able by the Supre&e Court. ?ith his &otion for re'onsideration havin" been denied by the appellate 'ourt in its subseDuent "#$olu0%o' o9 F#7"u*"y 8, 2000, 3 petitioner is now with us, sub&ittin" for resolution the followin" issues$ 9%; whether the Court of #ppeals erred in dis&issin" his petition for certiorari4 and 92; whether the 'ourts below erred in not "ivin" Rep. #'t No. 1234 a retroa'tive appli'ation. (he petition is partly &eritorious. #t the outset, it &ust be stressed that petitioner never put in issue the fa'tual findin"s of the trial 'ourt. ?hat he Duestions is said 'ourt5s le"al 'on'lusion that Rep. #'t No. 1234 'annot be retroa'tively applied to hi&. FnDuestionably, the issue raised is one purely of law. #s we have said in Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals:%= +or a Duestion to be one of law, the sa&e &ust not involve an

eBa&ination of the probative value of the eviden'e presented by the liti"ants or any one of the&. #nd the distin'tion is well<!nown$ there is a Duestion of law in a "iven 'ase when the doubt or differen'e arises as to what the law is on a 'ertain state of fa'ts4 there is a Duestion of fa't when the doubt or differen'e arises as to the truth or the falsehood of the fa'ts alle"ed. Considerin" that "judgments of regional trial courts in t e e!ercise of t eir original jurisdiction are to "e elevated to t e Court of Appeals in cases w en appellant raises #uestions of fact or mi!ed #uestions of fact and law", while "appeals from judgments of t e $same courts% in t e e!ercise of t eir original jurisdiction must "e "roug t directly to t e &upreme Court in cases w ere t e appellant raises only #uestions of law" %%, petitioner should have appealed the trial 'ourt5s rulin" to this Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari in a''ordan'e with Rule 4 of the %33> Rules of Civil Pro'edure, as a&ended,%2 pursuant to Rule 4%, Se'tion 2 9'; of the sa&e Rules, vi'$ SEC. 2. *odes of appeal. G 9a; BBB BBB BBB 9b; BBB BBB BBB 9'; #ppeal by certiorari. G In all 'ases where only Duestions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supre&e Court by petition for review on certiorari in a''ordan'e with Rule 4 . /y reason, then, of the availability to petitioner of the re&edy of a petition for review under Rule 4 , his ri"ht to resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 8 was effe'tively fore'losed, pre'isely be'ause one of the reDuire&ents for the avail&ent of the latter re&edy is that Ct ere s ould "e no appeal, or any plain, speedy and ade#uate remedy in t e ordinary course of law C,%0 the re&edies of appeal and certiorari bein" &utually eB'lusive and not alternative or su''essive. %4 #s 'orre'tly observed by the Court of #ppeals, what petitioner should have done was to ta!e an appeal fro& the trial 'ourt5s order of .uly % , %333 whi'h denied his &otion for re'onsideration of the *ay %1, %333 7ud"&ent of 'onvi'tion.

Petitioner5s 'ase is worse 'o&pounded by the fa't that even his period for appeal had already pres'ribed when he filed with the Court of #ppeals his certiorari petition in C#<:.R. SP No. 233%<FDH. (he (ollo of said 'ase reveals that petitioner re'eived his 'opy of the trial 'ourt5s order denyin" his &otion for re'onsideration on July 20, 1222. #s the sa&e (ollo shows, it was only on Au(u$0 2-, 1222, or after &ore than fifteen 9% ; days when petitioner filed his wron" re&edy of certiorari with the appellate 'ourt. /e that as it &ay, the Court feels that it &ust sDuarely address the issue raised in this 'ase re"ardin" the retroa'tivity of Rep. #'t No. 1234, what with the reality that the provisions thereof are undoubtedly favorable to petitioner. +or this purpose, then, we shall eBer'ise our prero"ative to set aside te'hni'alities in the Rules and Chold the bull by its hornsC, so to spea!. #fter all, the power of this Court to suspend its own rules whenever the interest of 7usti'e reDuires is not without le"al authority or pre'edent. In &olicitor General, et. al. vs. ) e Metropolitan Manila Aut ority,% we held$ FnDuestionably, the Court has the power to suspend pro'edural rules in the eBer'ise of its inherent power, as eBpressly re'o"ni-ed in the Constitution, to pro&ul"ate rules 'on'ernin" Epleadin", pra'ti'e and pro'edure in all 'ourts.5 In proper 'ases, pro'edural rules &ay be relaBed or suspended in the interest of substantial 7usti'e, whi'h otherwise &ay be &is'arried be'ause of a ri"id and for&alisti' adheren'e to su'h rules. BBB BBB BBB BBB ?e have &ade si&ilar rulin"s in other 'ases, thus$ /e it re&e&bered that rules of pro'edure are but &ere tools desi"ned to fa'ilitate the attain&ent of 7usti'e. (heir stri't and ri"id appli'ation, whi'h would result in te'hni'alities that tend to frustrate rather than pro&ote substantial 7usti'e, &ust always be avoided. BBB (i&e and a"ain, this Court has suspended its own rules and eB'epted a parti'ular 'ase fro& their operation whenever the hi"her interests of 7usti'e so reDuire. ?e shall now pro'eed to deter&ine whether the provisions of Rep. #'t No. 1234 a&endin" P.D. No. %188 'an be retroa'tively applied to

this 'ase. )ere, the two 92; 'ri&es for whi'h petitioner was 'onvi'ted by the trial 'ourt, i.e., 9%; ille"al possession of firear&s under P.D. No. %188 and 92; violation of CO*E,EC Resolution No. 2128 on "un ban, were both 'o&&itted by the petitioner on #pril 2>, %338. +or the 'ri&e of ille"al possession of firear&s in Cri&. Case No. 38<%4312=, he was senten'ed to suffer a prison ter& ran"in" fro& ten 9%=; years and one 9%; day of prision mayor, as &ini&u&, to 9%1; ei"hteen years, ei"ht 91; &onths and one 9%; day of reclusion temporal, as &aBi&u&, in a''ordan'e with P.D. No. %188, Se'tion % of whi'h reads$ SEC(ION %. Fnlawful *anufa'ture, Sale, #'Duisition, Disposition or Possession of +irear&s or #&&unition or Instru&ents Fsed or Intended to be Fsed in the *anufa'ture of +irear&s of #&&unition. I T,# 5#'*l0y o9 "#+lu$%o' 0#65o"*l %' %0$ 6*:%6u6 5#"%o& 0o "#+lu$%o' 5#"5#0u* $,*ll 7# %65o$#& upon any person who shall unlawfully &anufa'ture, deal in, a'Duire, dispose, or possess any firear&, part of firear&, a&&unition or &a'hinery, tool or instru&ent used or intended to be used in the &anufa'ture of any firear& or a&&unition. 9E&phasis supplied; ?hen Rep. #'t No. 1234 too! effe't on .uly 8, %33>, %8 the penalty for ille"al possession of firear&s was lowered, dependin" on the 'lass of firear& possessed, vi'$ SEC(ION %. Se'tion % of Presidential De'ree No. %188, as a&ended, is hereby further a&ended to read as follows$ ESEC(ION %. Fnlawful *anufa'ture, Sale, #'Duisition, Disposition or Possession of +irear&s or #&&unition or Instru&ents Fsed or Intended to be Fsed in the *anufa'ture of +irear&s or #&&unition. I T,# 5#'*l0y o9 5"%$%o' +o""#++%o'*l %' %0$ 6*:%6u6 5#"%o& and a fine of not less than +ifteen thousand pesos 9P% ,===; shall be i&posed upon any person who shall unlawfully &anufa'ture, deal in, a'Duire, dispose, or possess any low powered firear&, su'h as ri&fire hand"un, .01= or .02 and other firear& of si&ilar firepower, part of firear&, a&&unition, or &a'hinery, tool or instru&ent used or intended to be used in the &anufa'ture of any firear& or a&&unition$ !"o;%&#&, T,*0 'o o0,#" +"%6# <*$ +o66%00#&.

(he penalty of prision &ayor in its &ini&u& period and a fine of (hirty thousand pesos 9P0=,===; shall be i&posed if the firear& is 'lassified as hi"h powered firear& whi'h in'ludes those with bores bi""er in dia&eter than .01 'aliber and 3 &illi&eter su'h as 'aliber . 4=, .4%, .44, .4 and also lesser 'alibered firear&s but 'onsidered powerful su'h as 'aliber .0 > and 'aliber .22 'enter<fire &a"nu& and other firear&s with firin" 'apability of full auto&ati' and by burst of two or three$ !"o;%&#&, ,o<#;#", T,*0 'o o0,#" +"%6# <*$ +o66%00#& 7y 0,# 5#"$o' *""#$0#&. 9E&phasis supplied; /ased on the fore"oin", petitioner 'ontends that the redu'ed penalty under Rep. #'t No. 1234 should be the one i&posed on hi&. Si"nifi'antly, in its M*'%9#$0*0%o' I' L%#u o9 Co66#'0,%> the Offi'e of the Soli'itor :eneral a"rees with the petitioner, positin" further that the state&ent &ade by this Court in *eople vs. +ayson%1 to the effe't that the provisions for a li"hter penalty under Rep. #'t No. 1234 does not apply if another 'ri&e has been 'o&&itted, should not be applied to this 'ase be'ause the proviso in Se'tion % of said law that C no ot er crime was committed" &ust refer only to those 'ri&es 'o&&itted with the u$# of an unli'ensed firear& and not when the other 'ri&e is not related to the use thereof or where the law violated &erely 'ri&inali-es the possession of the sa&e, li!e in the 'ase of ele'tion "un ban, as here. #s early as #u"ust %33>, the &onth after Rep. #'t No. 1234 too! effe't,%3 this Court has pronoun'ed in Gon'ales vs. Court of Appeals2= that said law &ust be "iven retroa'tive effe't in favor of those a''used under P.D. No. %188. Sin'e then, this Court had 'onsistently adhered to the Gon'ales rulin".2% +or sure, in *eople vs. ,alde',22 where the a''used was 'har"ed with the 'o&pleB 'ri&e of &ultiple &urder with double frustrated &urder and ille"al possession of firear&s and a&&unitions under two separate infor&ations, this Court even too! a bolder stan'e by applyin" Rep. #'t No. 1234 retroa'tively so that the a''used therein &ay not be 'onvi'ted of the separate 'ri&e of ille"al possession of firear&s, but refused to apply the sa&e retroa'tively so as to a""ravate the 'ri&e of &urder. (he ,alde' rulin" had been applied in a host of subseDuent 'ases.20

@et, in other 'ases,24 althou"h the Court had "iven Rep. #'t No. 1234 retroa'tive effe't so as to prevent the 'onvi'tion of an a''used of the separate 'ri&e of ille"al possession of firear& when the said unli'ensed firear& was =u$#&= to 'o&&it the 'ri&e of &urder or ho&i'ide, the Court did not appre'iate this CuseC of su'h unli'ensed firear& as an a""ravatin" 'ir'u&stan'e as provided therein, when the CuseC of an unli'ensed firear& was not spe'ifi'ally alle"ed in the infor&ation, as reDuired by the Rules on Cri&inal Pro'edure. In the li"ht of the eBistin" rulin"s and 7urispruden'e on the &atter, the present 'ase ta!es 'enter sta"e presentin", this ti&e, another twist, so to spea!. Petitioner, who was 'har"ed of ille"al possession of firear&s was also 'har"ed of another offense$ 6iolation of CO*E,EC Resolution No. 2128 9:un /an;, but the unli'ensed firear& was not CusedC or dis'har"ed in this 'ase. (he Duestion then whi'h appears to be of first i&pression, is whether or not the unli'ensed firear& should be a'tually CusedC and dis'har"ed in the 'ourse of 'o&&ittin" the other 'ri&e in order that Se'. %, Rep. #'t No. 1234 will apply so that no separate 'ri&e of ille"al possession of firear&s &ay be 'har"ed. ,et us ta!e a loo! at the 7urispruden'e on'e a"ain. In Cupcupin vs. *eople,2 the a''used was 'har"ed and 'onvi'ted for two 92; separate 'ri&es of ille"al possession of firear&s, and ille"al possession of prohibited dru"s. In the &ore re'ent 'ase of *eople vs. Almeida,28 however, althou"h the a''used was a'Duitted of the separate 'har"e of ille"al possession of firear& for la'! of eviden'e, the Court nevertheless &ade the followin" 'lear pronoun'e&ent$ +urther&ore, in any event, the Court has ruled in previous 'ases that in view of the ena't&ent of Republi' #'t No. 1234, 0,#"# +*' 7# 'o $#5*"*0# o99#'$# o9 %ll#(*l 5o$$#$$%o' o9 9%"#*"6$ *'& *66u'%0%o' %9 0,#"# %$ *'o0,#" +"%6# +o66%00#& $u+, *$, %' 0,%$ +*$#, 0,*0 o9 %ll#(*l 5o$$#$$%o' o9 &*'(#"ou$ &"u($. 9E&phasis supplied; In Almeida, it should be noted that the unli'ensed firear& was &erely found lyin" around, to"ether with the prohibited dru"s, and therefore, was not bein" CusedC in the 'o&&ission of an offense.

:iven this Court5s aforeDuoted pronoun'e&ent in Almeida, 'an the a''used in the present 'ase still be separately 'onvi'ted of two 92; offenses of ille"al possession of firear&s and violation of "un ban, &ore so be'ause as in Almeida, the unli'ensed firear& was not a'tually CusedC or dis'har"ed in 'o&&ittin" the other offenseJ In *eople vs. -alpan M. .adjaalam,2> this Court, interpretin" the sub7e't proviso in Se'tion % of Rep. #'t No. 1234, applied the basi' prin'iples in 'ri&inal law, and 'ate"ori'ally held$ BBB A $%65l# "#*&%'( 0,#"#o9 $,o<$ 0,*0 %9 *' u'l%+#'$#& 9%"#*"6 %$ u$#& %' 0,# +o66%$$%o' o9 *'y +"%6#, 0,#"# +*' 7# 'o $#5*"*0# o99#'$# o9 $%65l# %ll#(*l 5o$$#$$%o' o9 9%"#*"6$. )en'e, if the Eother 'ri&e5 is &urder or ho&i'ide, ille"al possession of firear&s be'o&es &erely an a""ravatin" 'ir'u&stan'e, not a separate offense. Sin'e dire't assault with &ultiple atte&pted ho&i'ide was 'o&&itted in this 'ase, appellant 'an no lon"er be held liable for ille"al possession of firear&s. *oreover, penal laws are 'onstrued liberally in favor of the a''used. In this 'ase, the plain &eanin" of R# 12345s si&ple lan"ua"e is &ost favorable to herein appellant. 6erily, no other interpretation is 7ustified, for the lan"ua"e of the new law de&onstrates the le"islative intent to favor the a''used. #''ordin"ly, appellant 'annot be 'onvi'ted of two separate offenses of ille"al possession of firear&s and dire't assault with atte&pted ho&i'ide. BBB !!! !!! !!! !!! The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that no other crime was committed by the person arrested. If t e intention of t e law in t e second paragrap were to refer only to omicide and murder, it s ould ave e!pressly said so, as it did in t e t ird paragrap . ,erily, w ere t e law does not distinguis , neit er s ould we./0mp asis supplied1. (he afore&entioned rulin" was reiterated and applied in the subseDuent 'ases of *eople vs. Garcia,21 where the 7ud"&ent of 'onvi'tion of the a''used<appellants for ille"al possession of firear&s was set aside there bein" another 'ri&e G !idnappin" for ranso& G

whi'h they were perpetratin" at the sa&e ti&e4 *eople vs. 2ernal,23 where the Court retroa'tively applied Rep. #'t No. 1234 in a''used< appellant5s favor be'ause it would &ean his a'Duittal fro& the separate offense of ille"al possession of firear&s4 and *eople vs. 2ustamante,0= where, in refusin" to 'onvi't the a''used<appellant of the separate offense of ille"al possession of firear&s, the Court de'lared that insofar as it is favorable to the appellant, the provisions of Rep. #'t No. 1234 should be applied liberally and retroa'tively in that appellant &ust be a'Duitted of the 'har"e of ille"al possession of firear&s. :uided by the fore"oin", the Court 'annot but set aside petitioner5s 'onvi'tion in Cri&inal Case No. 38<%4312= for ille"al possession of firear& sin'e another 'ri&e was 'o&&itted at the sa&e ti&e, i.e., violation of CO*E,EC Resolution No. 2128 or the :un /an. #d&ittedly, this rulin" is not without &is"ivin"s 'onsiderin" that it would &ean petitioner5s a'Duittal of the &ore serious offense of ille"al possession of firear&s whi'h 'arries a &u'h heavier penalty than violation of the CO*E,EC "un<ban resolution. )owever, as we have rationali-ed in .adjaalam:0% BBB Indeed, the a''used &ay evade 'onvi'tion for ille"al possession of firear&s by usin" su'h weapons in 'o&&ittin" an even li"hter offense, li!e alar& and s'andal or sli"ht physi'al in7uries, both of whi'h are punishable by arresto &enor. (his 'onseDuen'e, however, ne'essarily arises fro& the lan"ua"e of R# 1234, whose wisdo& is not sub7e't to the Court5s review. #ny per'eption that the result rea'hed here appears unwise should be addressed to Con"ress. Indeed, the Court has no dis'retion to "ive statutes a new &eanin" deta'hed fro& the &anifest intend&ent and lan"ua"e of the le"islature. Our tas! is 'onstitutionally 'onfined only to applyin" the law and 7urispruden'e to the proven fa'ts, and we have done so in this 'ase. (he sole&n power and duty of the Court to interpret and apply the law does not in'lude the power to 'orre't by readin" into the law what is not written therein. ?hile we understand respondent *eople3s 'ontention that the CuseC of the firear& see&ed to have been the &ain 'onsideration durin" the deliberations of the sub7e't provision of

Rep. #'t No. 1234, the fa't re&ains that the word CuseC never found its way into the final version of the bill whi'h eventually be'a&e Rep. #'t No. 1234. (he Court5s hands are now tied and it 'annot supply the per'eived defi'ien'y in the final version without 'ontravenin" the &ost basi' prin'iples in the interpretation of penal laws whi'h had always leaned in favor of the a''used. Fnder our syste& of "overn&ent where powers are allo'ated to the three 90; "reat bran'hes, only the ,e"islature 'an re&edy su'h defi'ien'y, if any, by proper a&end&ent of Se'. % of Rep. #'t No. 1234. #s written, Se'. %, Rep. #'t No. 1234 restrains the Court fro& 'onvi'tin" petitioner of the separate 'ri&e of ille"al possession of firear& despite the fa't that, as in Almeida, the unli'ensed firear& was not a'tually CusedC. +or sure, there is, in this 'ase, 'loser relation between possession of unli'ensed firear& and violation of the CO*E,EC "un<ban than the ille"al possession of unli'ensed firear& to the 'ri&e of ille"al possession of prohibited dru"s in Almeida. >HEREFORE, Cri&inal Case No. 38<%4312= for ille"al possession of firear&s is hereby DIS*ISSED while the 7ud"&ent of 'onvi'tion in Cri&inal Case No. 38<%4312% for violation of CO*E,EC Resolution No. 2128 in relation to Rep. #'t No. >%88 9:un /an;, is #++IR*ED. Sin'e petitioner has already served &ore than the penalty i&posed upon hi& by the trial 'ourt in Cri&inal Case No. 38<%4312%, his i&&ediate release fro& 'ustody is hereby ORDERED unless detained for so&e other lawful 'ause. SO ORDERED. Davide, .r., C..., Puno, Pan"aniban, Kuisu&bin", @nares<Santia"o, Sandoval<:utierre-, Carpio, #ustria<*artine-, Corona, Carpio< *orales, Calle7o, Sr., #-'una, (in"a, and Chi'o<Na-ario, ..., 'on'ur. Foo0'o0#$ Penned by #sso'iate .usti'e Eloy R. /ello, .r. 9ret.; and 'on'urred in by #sso'iate .usti'es .ainal D. Rasul 9ret.; and Ruben (. Reyes.
% 2

C#n #'t #&endin" the Provisions of Presidential De'ree No. %188,

#s #&endedC.
0

(ollo, pp.0=<0%.

Entitled "Codifying t e .aws on Illegal45nlawful *ossession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Ac#uisition or Disposition of 6irearms, Ammunition or 0!plosives or Instruments 5sed in t e Manufacture of 6irearms, Ammunition or 0!plosives, and Imposing &tiffer *enalties for Certain ,iolations ) ereof, and for (elevant *urposes".
4

*ista!enly referred to as No. 2121 in the Infor&ation.

8

&upra. (ollo, p. 2 . (ollo, pp. 2><21a. (ollo, pp. 0=<0%. 23> SCR# 8=2, 8% L%331M.

>

%=

Macawiwili Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra, at p. 8%4.
%%

CSe'tion %. +ilin" of petition with Supre&e Court. G # party desirin" to appeal by certiorari fro& a 7ud"&ent or final order or resolution of the Court of #ppeals, the Sandi"anbayan, the Re"ional (rial Court, or other 'ourts, whenever authori-ed by law, &ay file with the Supre&e Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. (he petition shall raise only Duestions of law whi'h &ust be distin'tly set forth.C
%2 %0

Se'tion %, Rule 8 , %33> Rules of Court. 2ernardo vs. CA, 2> SCR# 420, 428 L%33>M. :.R. No. %=2>12, De'. %%, %33%, 2=4 SCR# 10>, 142<140.

%4

R.#. 1234 was approved on .une 8, %33> and published on .une 2%, %33>.
%8 %>

(ollo, pp. 4<

%1

212 SCR# %88 L%33>M. R# 1234 too! effe't on .uly 8, %33>. 2>> SCR# %1 L%33>M.

%3

2=

*atrano vs. CA, O'tober 0%, %33>4 *eople vs. 2ergante, +ebruary 2>, %3314 *eople vs. Molina, .uly 22, %331.
2% 22

0=4 SCR# 8%% L%333M.

*eople vs. 7arciso, Nove&ber 2%, 2==24 *eople vs. .ope', .anuary %4, 2==04 *eople vs. 2ustamante, +ebruary %2, 2==0.
20

*eople vs. Ave, O'tober %1, 2==24 *eople vs. Delim, .anuary 21, 2==04 *eople vs. &apigao, .une %1, 2==04 *eople vs. .ac ica, Septe&ber 0, 2==0.
24 2

032 SCR# 2=0 L2==2M. 4%1 SCR# 2 4 L2==0M. 04= SCR# 8%>, 841<843, 8 = L2===M. 0>0 SCR# %04, %8=, .anuary % , 2==2 011 SCR# 2%%, 224, Septe&ber 2, 2==2. 03> SCR# 028, 044, +ebruary %2, 2==0. &upra at pp. 8 =<8 %.

28

2>

21

23

0=

0%