Unlicensed

Under Republic Act 8294 which took effect on July 6, 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of murder or homicide or any other crime, is considered merely as an aggravating circumstance and no longer a separate crime of illegal possession of firearm. This case of Akbar explains what is covered by the terms “unlicensed firearm”. 

Akbar was accused of murdering Hamil on September 2, 1999 with the use of a .45 caliber pistol. To prove the charge, the prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including Akbar’s own brother, Ali, who gave an interlocking account of the facts, in a straightforward, categorical and candid manner, with intricate attention to details leading to no other conclusion than that Akbar committed a treacherous assault on Hamil.

Thus it was established that at about 5:45 p.m., Ali and Hamil were then conversing seated on a bench at the side of Hamil’s small nipa hut located along the shoreline of an island in Zamboanga City. At that time Akbar was inside the nipa hut while a seaweed farmer working at the seaweed farm of Hamil by the name of Gamal was about five arms length away.

Suddenly shots rang out and when Ali turned around to look where it came from, he saw a pistol poised just above his shoulders held in both hands by a man. He grabbed the pistol and it fell. He then saw that the man holding the pistol was his brother Akbar. After the pistol fell to the ground, Akbar ran away to the seashore but he was chased by Gamal who caught him and tied his hands. Ali on the other hand took the pistol.

Hamil was shot from behind and hit on the nape with the bullet exiting on his right cheek. He was already dead when he was brought to his nipa house due to hemorrhage secondary to the gunshot wound measuring .8 to 1.2 cm.

Ali turned over the pistol to the police and upon investigation, it was found out that Akbar had not applied for a license to posses the firearm nor did he have a permit to carry it outside his residence.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Akbar guilty of murder because the killing was done by treachery. And because of the use of unlicensed firearm which the RTC considered as an aggravating circumstance he was sentenced to death. Akbar questioned the application of this aggravating circumstance. He claimed that no evidence was shown that he had prior physical possession and/or ownership of the .45 caliber pistol before the same was used against the deceased. Was Akbar correct?

No. Two requisites are necessary to establish illegal possession of firearms: first, the existence of the subject firearm; and second, the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the gun did not have the corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence.

In this case the existence of the subject firearm was duly established. Secondly, it was ascertained that Akbar who used the subject firearm to commit the crime did not have the corresponding license or permit to carry the gun outside of his residence. And even assuming that the firearm was licensed, the unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the commission of the crime is still covered by the term “unlicensed firearm” under Section 5, of R.A. 8294.

Considering however that on June 30, 2006, R.A. 9346 otherwise known as “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines”, took effect, the penalty of Akbar was downgraded to reclusion perpetua (People vs. Eling, G.R. 178546, April 30, 2008). 

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]