This is one of those laws that makes lawyering much more

interesting. (By Jay I. D.)

rationale of this last phrase in the law. This is the “escape clause”
of the law on illegal possession of firearms. One can be charged
with illegal possession of firearms. But if, at the time he was
caught, another crime was committed, then he cannot be charged
with illegal possession of firearms? This provision challenges the
creative minds of defense lawyers.

Example
Let me give an example. Suppose, a person is caught by a
policeman possessing a .38 caliber gun. While being arrested, the
suspect gives another identity to conceal his true name.
The‘minor’ crime of concealment carries a lighter penalty. Can the
state lawfully charge the suspect of illegal possession of firearms?
Or can he be charged with concealment of name? Remember,
under the law on illegal possession of firearms, there is a proviso
which states: “Provided no other crime was committed.”

Outrage in Cebu I am reminded of that outrageous story I read

that happened in Cebu not long ago. A group of people suspected
to be high profile notorious kidnappers were caught with firearms.
At the time of the arrest they used faked military id’s. The
notorious gang was charged, not with illegal possession of
firearms but usurpation of authority. The latter carried a lighter
penalty. This sparked outrage among members of the legal
community in Cebu, who called for an amendment of the law.

Conclusion
So the law on illegal possession of firearms in its present form
sparks the imaginative, creative adrenalin of defense lawyers.
Supreme Court rules
According to the Supreme Court there are mainly two elements
needed to convict one of illegal possession of firearms. First, the
prosecution needs to establish the existence of the subject
firearm. Second the prosecution should prove the fact that the
accused who owned or possessed it does not have the
corresponding license or permit to possess the same. To prove
the second element, a certification by the PNP firearms and
explosives division is needed. But if the firearm involved is one
that cannot be issued to civilians, like an M-16, this certification
may be dispensed with.

Another rule laid down by the Supreme Court is that ownership is

not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession.
“Possession” includes, not only actual physical possession, but
also constructive possession.

“Constructive possession” means the subjection of the thing to

one’s control and management. Defenses Essentially, it is not that
difficult to prove the elements of illegal possession of firearms. If
one is in possession of a firearm, and he does not have the
license to possess, then there is a strong case against him ahead.
But the new law on illegal possession of firearms, R.A. 8294
strikingly provides the accused a wide latitude of “creative” ways
to raise a defense. That is what makes this law controversial,
some say non-sensical. The controversial proviso Under the law
on illegal possession of firearms, one caught unlawfully
possessing firearms can be charged with the law, “PROVIDED
NO OTHER CRIME WAS COMMITTED.” I do not know the
story short, he was convicted of illegal possession of firearms
under the harsh P.D. 1866. If you want to read this colorful
episode of Robin Padilla, I refer you to the Supreme Court
decision in Robin Carino Padilla versus Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 121917 March 12,1997. Robin was sentenced and spent jail
term in the national penitentiary in Muntinlupa.

Ramon Revilla rescue

Then enter Senator Ramon Revilla, a fellow actor of Robin, who
perhaps took pity on the sad state of a young promising
colleague. Thinking that the law is just too harsh, Senator Ramon
Revilla authored what is now Republic Act 8294, the current law
against illegal possession of firearms. This law took effect July 6,
1997. I always regard R.A. 8294 as the “Robin Padilla law”
because I cannot help but think—rightly or wrongly—that this law
was for Robin Padilla. Or at least he was the law’s principal
beneficiary. Because of this law, Robin Padilla is now a free man.
And I think Robin has redeemed himself (so far) , as he has since
shown himself to be a “responsible member of society.”

The penalty for illegal possession of firearms had been drastically

reduced. It is bailable. The penalty for simple possession of a .38
caliber, 9 millimeter, or similarly (low) powered gun is from four to
six years, with a fine of P15,000. For possessing a higher
powered firearms like a .45 caliber, .357 magnum, .22 center-fire
magnum, and firearms with automatic firing capability, the penalty
under the new law ranges between six to eight years, with a fine
of P30,000.
BACKGROUNDER

The law on illegal possession of firearms comes to light in the

wake of the brief arrest-and-release of Noreco II General
Manager Ephraim Taclob when the vehicle he was on board with
eight men was flagged down by Philippine Army personnel.

The Army, purportedly acting on reports that rebels were in the

area, held checkpoint and uncovered heavy firearms in the
vehicle driven by Engr. Taclob. According to the local Philippine
National Police, charges of illegal possession of firearms are
going to be filed. Not very long ago, the law on illegal possession
of firearms was very harsh. This was a product of those Marcos
decrees designed to fight the so-called enemies of the state. For
Marcos to ensure that those who ever try to mount an
insurrection, or rebellion against the state received the full force of
the law, he enacted Presidential Decree No. 1866. Those found
guilty under this decree were meted a penalty of up to forty years
in prison. That was the law then.

Robin Padilla episode

Then came Robin Padilla. If you recall, Robin Padilla was then the
poster boy of the Ramos administration, and was once even
regarded as a “role model” for the youth. But Robin had brushes
with the law. Once, he figured in a hit-and-run while driving his
Pajero.

He was pursued by police, and eventually flagged down. He was

found to have in his possession various firearms. To cut a long