Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
injustice. This is one of the understandings in interpreting a law or statute which leads to
the question, is carrying out a lower penalty disregarding a crime that would have a
Sure R.A. 8294 disregards illegal possession of firearms when there is another
crime committed expressly, but is the intent of the framers really to favor the accused by
disregarding the bigger crime? From the examples of crimes given in R.A. 8294, the
other said crimes carry with it a penalty larger than illegal possession of firearm is being
given. Will it not show us an implied intent of the framers that it should be obvious that
illegal possession of firearms must not be carried out as a different crime only when the
other crime gives a bigger penalty, as to favor the accused or convict of the other
crime? In this way, the accused or convict would only be given the larger sentence for
One would think that acts favoring the accused would be given only when all the
charges are laid down against him. This is usually the case when undergoing due
process in which an accused should be guilty beyond reasonable doubt or to have a law
give retroactive effect. But it is confusing to think about a law that favors an accused
even before proceedings. Usually the law or statute in this way would specify the details
involved profoundly so as to show that indeed, the intention was to favor the accused.
This cannot be found in the language of R.A. 8294 which uses the term “other” in the
phrase “no other crime”. Although the term is general and clear, it still cannot establish
the fact that indeed, there was intent to favor the accused up to the point of injustice.
It is preposterous to think that one could just make a crime and get away with it
without any punishment because the law itself says so. Our laws, in a way, are inclined
with the natural law, meaning, they are for the good. It is illogical where a person may
commit the crime of illegally possessing a firearm, does another petty crime with the
unlicensed firearm, and gets away from the larger sentence of the previous crime. If this
was the kind of reasoning indeed that the framers placed in R.A. 8294 with the intent of
favoring a perpetrator of a crime, it would be very easy to run away from a justifiable
penalty and get only a minor punishment, not to mention the knowledge it would give
the accused or convict on how to efficiently evade the crime of illegal possession of
accused or convict repent for the crime they have committed or even people to be
mindful of a penalty imposed on a crime as for them not to commit it, these kinds of
even make people fear the penalty less and could even compel them in doing the crime
If, say, the explanation of the Court in this case of People of the Philippines vs.
unlicensed firearm would be normal so long as you will not get caught (as is probably
the case nowadays). Why would one spend time and money to prepare for documents
or license for a firearm when one could prepare a situation or a “canned” crime to evade
the charges for illegal possession of firearm when caught? It would be more efficient
and cheaper to do so. And take note of the fact of “when caught”, this would be the
mindset of people and even make it more of a norm because of a simple loophole in this
statute.
In this case, with the help of people well acquainted with the law, injustice in this
field would only be the end part. One would not be able to fathom the means to be used
in getting to that end part. For example, if one could be caught illegally possessing a
firearm, he or she would just shoot the said firearm to cause a disturbance of peace or
even other charges for a newer crime committed which would be give him or her a
smaller penalty and to even evade the previous crime. Now, could it be considered to
be just, in that causing fear to public or doing a crime of a larger scale involving other
people is used as a scapegoat to evade a crime which does not necessarily have to
involve the public? In which case, should it be used frequently, would this result be for
the common good? Could it be now said that this obvious and a very possible well