PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.

WALPAN LADJAALAM y MIHAJIL alias

WARPAN, appellant. Ponente: PANGANIBAN

FACTS: The trial court found the appelant guilty of maintaining a drug den, an offense for
which was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Appelants guilt was established by the testimony
of Prosecution Witness , who himself had used the extension house of appellant as a drug den
on several occasions, including the time of the raid. The formers testimony was corroborated
by all the raiding police officers who testified before the court. That appelant did not deny
ownership of the house and its extension lent credence to the prosecutions story. The trial
court also convicted appellant of direct assault with multiple counts of attempted homicide. It
found that [t]he act of the accused [of] firing an M14 rifle [at] the policemen[,] who were
about to enter his house to serve a search warrant x x x constituted such complex crime.
Aside from finding appellant guilty of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide, the
trial court convicted him also of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms under
PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, and sentenced him to 6 years of prision correccional to 8
years of prision mayor.

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant can be convicted separately of illegal possession of firearms
after using said firearm in the commission of another crime.

HELD: NO. The appealed Decision was affirmed with modifications. Appellant is found
guilty only of two offenses: (1) direct assault and multiple attempted homicide with the use of
a weapon and (2) maintaining a drug den. RATIO: 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 the intention of the law in the second paragraph were to
refer only to homicide and murder, it should have expressly said so, as it did in the third
paragraph. Verily, where the law does not distinguish, neither should [the courts]. The Court
is aware that this ruling effectively exonerates appellant of illegal possession of an M-14
rifle, an offense which normally carries a penalty heavier than that for direct assault. While
the penalty for the first is prision mayor, for the second it is only prision correccional. Indeed,
the accused may evade conviction for illegal possession of firearms by using such weapons in
committing an even lighter offense, like alarm and scandal or slight physical injuries, both of
which are punishable by arresto menor. This consequence, however, necessarily arises from
the language of RA 8294, whose wisdom is not subject to the Courts review. Any perception
that the result reached here appears unwise should be addressed to Congress. Indeed, the
Court has no discretion to give statutes a new meaning detached from the manifest
intendment and language of the legislature. [The Courts] task is constitutionally confined
only to applying the law and jurisprudence to the proven facts, and [this Court] have done so
in this case.
Agote v Lorenzo

Petitioner: Vicente Agote Respondents: Hon. Manuel Lorenzo, Presiding Judge, RTC,
Branch 43, Manila and People of the Philippines Ponente: J. Garcia

FACTS: Petitioner Vicente Agote was charged to have violated Presidential Decree No. 1866
(Illegal Possession of Firearms) and COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 (Gun Ban) for having
in possession one (1) .38 cal. Rev. with four (4) live bullets in a public place during the
election period without having secured the necessary license and authority from the
COMELEC. During the pendency of the case, Republic Act No. 8294 was approved into law.
Eventually, the trial court rendered judgment of conviction in both cases wherein separate
penalties were imposed respectively. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, claiming that the
penalty for illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 had already been reduced by
the subsequent enactment of Republic Act No. 8294, which the trial court subsequently
denied. He then filed a petition before the Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R.
SP No. 2991-UDK, but was likewise dismissed.

ISSUES: 1) Whether or not Republic Act No. 8294 should be applied retroactively. 2)
Whether or not such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as a special aggravating
circumstance.

HELD: 1) Yes. The rule is that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they
favor the person guilty of a felony. Republic Act No. 8294 lowers the penalty for illegal
possession of firearms depending on the class of firearm possessed. The lighter penalty may
be imposed to a person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or ammunition, unless no
other crime was committed. Moreover, the Court has already ruled in Gonzales vs. Court of
Appeals that said law must be given retroactive effect in favor of those accused under P.D.
No. 1866. But as violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 or the Gun Ban was also
committed by the petitioner at the same time, the Court cannot but set aside petitioners
conviction for illegal possession of firearm. 2) No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially
provides that any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or ammunition shall be
penalized, unless no other crime was committed. It further provides that such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered only as an aggravating circumstance in cases of
homicide or murder. Since the crime committed was in violation of COMELEC Resolution
No. 2826 or the Gun Ban, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating
circumstance.