Você está na página 1de 3

When the law is clear, it should be interpreted literally as long as it won’t cause

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

bigger sentence not unjust?

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

crimes involving illegal possession of firearms.

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

firearm. Opposite to the desired effect of a penalty, which is obviously to make an

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

laws, especially when backed up by a jurisprudence favorable to the accused, would

even make people fear the penalty less and could even compel them in doing the crime

for they know how to literally evade the said crime.

If, say, the explanation of the Court in this case of People of the Philippines vs.

Walpan Ladjaalam y Milapil would be known more to the public, possession of

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

accounted for result be part of the intent of the framers?

Você também pode gostar