Republic Act No. 8177, An Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection...

Republic of the Philippines Congress of the Philippines Metro Manila Tenth Congress   Republic Act No. 8177 March 20, 1996 AN ACT DESIGNATING DEATH BY LETHAL INJECTION AS THE METHOD OF CARRYING OUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 81 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 24 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:: Section 1. Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 7659 is hereby further amended to read as follows: "Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. – The death sentence shall be executed with preference to any other penalty and shall consist in putting the person under the sentence to death by lethal injection. The death sentence shall be executed under the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, endeavoring so far as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under the sentence during the lethal injection as well as during the proceedings prior to the execution. "The Director of the Bureau of Corrections shall take steps to ensure that the lethal injection to be administered is sufficient to cause the instantaneous death of the convict. "Pursuant to this, all personnel involved in the administration of lethal injection shall be trained prior to the performance of such task. "The authorized physician of the Bureau of Corrections, after thorough examination, shall officially make a pronouncement of the convict's death and shall certify thereto in the records of the Bureau of Corrections. The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier than one (1) year nor later than eighteen (18) months after the judgment has become final and executory without prejudice to the exercise by the President of his executive clemency powers at all times." Section 2. Persons already sentenced by judgment, which has become final and executory, who are waiting to undergo the death penalty by electrocution or gas poisoning shall be under the coverage of the provisions of this Act upon its effectivity. Their sentences shall be automatically modified for this purpose. Section 3. Implementing Rules. – The Secretary of Justice in coordination with the Secretary of Health and the Bureau of Corrections shall, within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act, promulgate the rules to implement its provisions. Section 4. Repealing Clause. – All laws, presidential decrees and issuances, executive orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 5. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation, whichever comes earlier. Publication shall not be later than ten (10) days after the approval thereof. Approved: March 20, 1996 Source: The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

 

Republic Act No. 9346, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines

Republic of the Philippines Congress of the Philippines Metro Manila Thirteenth Congress Second Regular Session Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-fifth day of July, two thousand and five. Republic Act No. 9346 June 24, 2006 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law, and all other laws, executive orders and decrees, insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed. (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code. SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. SEC. 4. The Board of Pardons and Parole shall cause the publication at least one a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation of the names of persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment by reason of this Act who are being considered or recommend for commutation or pardon; Provided, however, That nothing herein shall limit the power of the President to grant executive clemency under Section 19, Article VII of the Constitutions. SEC. 5. This Act shall take effect immediately after its publication in two national newspapers of general circulation. Approved, FRANKLIN  DRILON President of the Senate JOSE DE VENECIA JR. Speaker of the House of Representatives This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2254 and House Bill No. 4826 was finally passed but the Senate and the House of Representative on July 7, 2006.   OSCAR G.YABES Secretary of Senate ROBERTO P. NAZARENO Secretary General House of Represenatives Approved: June 24, 2006 GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO President of the Philippines Source: The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation ­­­

 

Republic Act No. 7080; AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER

Republic of the Philippines Congress of the Philippines Metro Manila Eighth Congress   Republic Act No. 7080 July 12, 1991 AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:: Section 1. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act, the term - a) Public Officer means any person holding any public office in the Government of the Republic of the Philippines by virtue of an appointment, election or contract. b) Government includes the National Government, and any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned or -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. c) Person includes any natural or juridical person, unless the context indicates otherwise. d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes: 1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; 2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned; 3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; 4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking; 5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or 6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. See Section 2 As amended by Section 12 of RA No.7659 Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties - Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described in Section 1(d) hereof, in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Seventy-five million pesos (P75,000,000.00),–now fifty million pesos under Section 12 of amendatory law RA 7659—shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by life imprisonment with perpetual absolute disqualification from holding any public office. Any person who participated with said public officer in the commission of plunder shall likewise be punished. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stock derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State. Section 3. Competent Court - Until otherwise provided by law, all prosecutions under this Act shall be within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Section 4. Rule of Evidence - For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy. Section 5. Suspension and Loss of Benefits - Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and other benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime, administrative proceedings have been filed against him. Section 6. Prescription of Crimes - The crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in twenty (20) years. However, the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or from their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel. Section 7. Separability of Provisions - If any provisions of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions of this Act and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. Section 8. Scope - This Act shall not apply to or affect pending prosecutions or proceedings, or those which may be instituted under Executive Order No. 1, issued and promulgated on February 28, 1986. Section 9. Effectivity - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its publication in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation. Approved: July 12, 1991

 

How is Theft Qualified? What are its Elements? How does the Penalty Differ?

Many commit theft, but a few get prosecuted, or apprehended. Or conversely, maybe many commit theft, because too few get prosecuted, much less sent to jail. In most instances, if the perpetrator is at all identified, victims tire out and withdraw the complaint, or simply lose interest and stop attending the mandatory Preliminary Investigation, thus, causing the dismissal of the case.

In yet other instances, while victims are able to identify the perpetrator, the latter, strangely, always seem to outrun the authorities, and before the latter could warm up, the former could be hundreds of miles away in one of the thousands of islands in the Philippines—enjoying his loot on the beach—or he could go real big, if he knows the drill, and fly out of the country, never to return again.

That’s not even to mention that even if the thief is caught, or is daring enough to stand trial on plea of not guilty, he has all in the law and the Constitution in his favor. For one, the quantum of proof in a criminal case, which theft is, is guilt beyond reasonable doubt or moral certainty. What does this mean? This means that a thief need only create a doubt to escape culpability or prison, since no one can be convicted on even the most tenuous of doubts. If he has been in the business long enough and has amassed enough, he could get himself a good lawyer to even more stack the odds in his favor.

Also, let us consider that the latter half of the enumeration of bill of rights, all of it, under Article Three of the 1987 Constitution pertains to the rights of the accused. These rights are designed to limit the power of the State, and thus, stretch the chances of the accused to escape even prosecution. You see, a thief is one pampered son of a bitch!

However, a warning to the thieves: downplay it at your own risk. Despite these facts, Theft is a very serious felony, which conviction can easily get you 6 years to ten years of jail time. And when committed with any of the circumstances cited under Art. 310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)—making it Qualified—you could easily raise the stakes to the possibility of spending a lifetime in prison, depending on your age.

Qualified Theft carries a prescribed penalty of two degrees higher than that prescribed and imposed on simple theft under Art. 308, RPC. Given that, it is easy to get reclusion perpetua or maximum imprisonment under the RPC.

Let us talk about Qualified Theft—its nature and penalty—as discussed in the Court’s decision in one case. To read the case click here.

xxx

The facts as charged in the information. 

 

That in or about and during the period comprised between April 28, 1998 and May 2, 2002, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away the total amount of P797,187.85 belonging to VIDEO CITY COMMERCIAL, INC. and VIVA VIDEOCITY, INC. represented by MIGUEL Q. SAMILLANO, in the following manner, to wit: by making herself the payee in forty-two pre-signed BPI Family Bank checks in the account of Video City Commercial and Jefferson Tan (the latter as franchise[e]) and encashing said checks in the total amount of P797,187.85, for her personal benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said owner in the aforesaid amount of P797,187.85, Philippine Currency.

That the said accused acted with grave abuse of confidence, she being then employed as bookkeeper in the aforesaid firm and as such was privy to the financial records and checks belonging to complainant and was actually entrusted with the said financial records, documents and checks and their transactions thereof in behalf of complainant.³

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial thereafter ensued.

Summarily, the prosecution proved the following facts: Video City Commercial, Inc. (VCCI) and Viva Video City, Inc. (Viva) were sister companies which managed a chain of stores known as Video City. These stores, some company-owned while others were operated in joint ventures with franchisees, were engaged in the sale and rental of video-related merchandises. During the period of April 28, 1998 to May 2, 2002, petitioner was the accounting clerk and bookkeeper of VCCI and Viva. One of her duties was to disburse checks for the accounts she handled. She was assigned to handle twelve (12) Video City store franchise accounts, including those of Tommy Uy, Wilma Cheng, Jefferson Tan and Sharon Cuneta. As regards the franchisee Jefferson Tan, who was out of the country most of the time, Tan pre-signed checks to cover the store’s disbursements and entrusted them to petitioner. The pre-signed checks by Jefferson Tan were from a current account maintained jointly by VCCI and Jefferson Tan at BPI Family Bank, Sta. Mesa. There was also an existing agreement with the bank that any disbursement not exceeding P20,000.00 would require only Tan’s signature.⁴

Convicted by the RTC, and affirmed by CA, Accused filed a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 raising the following issues:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF QUALIFIED THEFT.

1-a. WHETHER THE PHRASE “X X X SHALL TAKE THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF ANOTHER WITHOUT THE LATTER'S CONSENT X X X” IN ARTICLE 308 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 310 OF THE SAME CODE WOULD REQUIRE AS AN ELEMENT OF “QUALIFIED THEFT” AN ESTABLISHED PROOF OF “OWNERSHIP” OF THE PROPERTY ALLEGEDLY STOLEN?

1-b. WHETHER IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE DUE EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE ALLEGED SIGNATURES OF THE ACCUSED IN THE CHECKS BE FULLY ESTABLISHED AND IDENTIFIED AND IF NOT SO ESTABLISHED AND IDENTIFIED, THE SAME WOULD BE A FATAL FLAW IN THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WHICH INEVITABLY WOULD LEAD TO ACCUSED’S ACQUITTAL?

1-c. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO ESTABLISH AND AUTHENTICATE OR IDENTIFY THE SIGNATURES OF THE ACCUSED ANNIE MIRANDA AND JEFFERSON TAN CONSTITUTED A FATAL FLAW IN PROVING THAT THE ACCUSED AND JEFFERSON TAN WERE THE AUTHORS OF SAID SIGNATURES?

1-d. [WHETHER THE] CONCLUSION OF FACTS BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.

1-e. WHETHER THE CHECKS AND VOUCHERS PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE NOT IN THEIR ORIGINALS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED ADMISSION BY THE COURT A QUO, THERE BEING NO SUFFICIENT FACTS ADDUCED TO JUSTIFY THE PRESENTATION OF XEROX COPIES OR SECONDARY EVIDENCE.⁸ 

           Essentially, the issue for our resolution is whether the CA correctly affirmed petitioner’s conviction for qualified theft.

Petitioner insists that she should not have been convicted of qualified theft as the prosecution failed to prove the private complainant’s absolute ownership of the thing stolen. Further, she maintains that Jefferson Tan’s signatures on the checks were not identified by any witness who is familiar with his signature. She likewise stresses that the checks and vouchers presented by the prosecution were not original copies and that no secondary evidence was presented in lieu of the former.

The Court held:

The appeal lacks merit.

A careful review of the records of this case and the parties’ submissions leads the Court to conclude that there exists no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA. We note that the arguments raised by petitioner in her petition are a mere rehash of her arguments raised before, and correctly resolved by, the CA.

The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article 308⁹ of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.¹⁰ Theft becomes qualified when any of the following circumstances under Article 310¹¹ is present: (1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant; (2) the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen is either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; (5) the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.¹²

Here, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the amount of P797,187.85 taken does not belong to petitioner but to VCCI and that petitioner took it without VCCI’s consent and with grave abuse of confidence by taking advantage of her position as accountant and bookkeeper. The prosecution’s evidence proved that petitioner was entrusted with checks payable to VCCI or Viva by virtue of her position as accountant and bookkeeper. She deposited the said checks to the joint account maintained by VCCI and Jefferson Tan, then withdrew a total of P797,187.85 from said joint account using the pre-signed checks, with her as the payee. In other words, the bank account was merely the instrument through which petitioner stole from her employer VCCI.

We find no cogent reason to disturb the above findings of the trial court which were affirmed by the CA and fully supported by the evidence on record. Time and again, the Court has held that the facts found by the trial court, as affirmed in toto by the CA, are as a general rule, conclusive upon this Court¹³ in the absence of any showing of grave abuse of discretion. In this case, none of the exceptions to the general rule on conclusiveness of said findings of facts are applicable.¹⁴ The Court gives weight and respect to the trial court’s findings in criminal prosecution because the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses in person and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.¹⁵ Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court’s appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses.

Does the Complainant need to be the owner of the personal property stolen?

Moreover, we agree with the CA when it gave short shrift to petitioner’s argument that full ownership of the thing stolen needed to be established first before she could be convicted of qualified theft. As correctly held by the CA, the subject of the crime of theft is any personal property belonging to another. Hence, as long as the property taken does not belong to the accused who has a valid claim thereover, it is immaterial whether said offender stole it from the owner, a mere possessor, or even a thief of the property.¹⁶ In any event, as stated above, the factual findings of the courts a quo as to the ownership of the amount petitioner stole is conclusive upon this Court, the finding being adequately supported by the evidence on record.

However, notwithstanding the correctness of the finding of petitioner’s guilt, a modification is called for as regards the imposable penalty. On the imposition of the correct penalty, People v. Mercado¹⁷ is instructive. Pursuant to said case, in the determination of the penalty for qualified theft, note is taken of the value of the property stolen, which is P797,187.85 in this case. Since the value exceeds P22,000.00, the basic penalty is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods to be imposed in the maximum period, that is, eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor.

To determine the additional years of imprisonment to be added to the basic penalty, the amount of P22,000.00 is deducted from P797,187.85, which yields a remainder of P775,187.85. This amount is then divided by P10,000.00, disregarding any amount less than P10,000.00. The end result is that 77 years should be added to the basic penalty. However, the total imposable penalty for simple theft should not exceed 20 years. Thus, had petitioner committed simple theft, the penalty would be 20 years of reclusion temporal. As the penalty for qualified theft is two degrees higher, the trial court, as well as the appellate court, should have imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Criminal Contempt v. Civil Contempt

In People v. Godoy, this Court made a distinction between criminal and civil contempt. The Court declared:

A criminal contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect. On the other hand, civil contempt consists in failing to do something ordered to be done by a court in a civil action for the benefit of the opposing party therein and is, therefore, an offense against the party in whose behalf the violated order is made.

A criminal contempt, being directed against the dignity and authority of the court, is an offense against organized society and, in addition, is also held to be an offense against public justice which raises an issue between the public and the accused, and the proceedings to punish it are punitive. On the other hand, the proceedings to punish a civil contempt are remedial and for the purpose of the preservation of the right of private persons. It has been held that civil contempt is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, but a power of the court.

It has further been stated that intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt, and that no one can be punished for a criminal contempt unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it. On the contrary, there is authority indicating that since the purpose of civil contempt proceedings is remedial, the defendant’s intent in committing the contempt is immaterial. Hence, good faith or the absence of intent to violate the court’s order is not a defense in civil contempt.

Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition as amended by Republic Act 10591

President Pnoy, on May 29, 2013, signed into law the latest amending legislative act on Firearms and Ammunition, Republic Act 10591, to take effect 15 days from its publication in a newspaper of national circulation. As of this writing, the law would have taken effect.

While the PNP (now tasked what DOJ and DILG were under RA 8294) is still crafting the Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) for the law, which the law mandates to be ready for roll out in 120 days from effectivity of the Act, it is presumed that the substance of the law are already reflected in the procedure for procuring license and PTCFOR.

A reading of the law highlights significant differences from its predecessors. It is, by far, more comprehensive and well-thought of. It is more stringent in its requirements for issuance of license, and a leap more rigorous for issuance of Permit to Carry Firearms Outside Residence (PTCFOR). I know, because I have just gone through the process, and I haven’t finished yet.

It is more cumbersome now if you fail to renew your license within six (6) months before expiry date. It will have the effect of NOT only revoking your license, but the registration of your firearm as well, even if the latter is effective for four (4) years. This is a far cry from the eight (8) years that it took for an unrenewed license to get revoked prior to this law, I was told.

In case your license is revoked, and you intend to renew the same, you will be required to submit, on top of NBI clearance and proof of billing (make sense but something I don’t remember having to bother about in the past), a Letter of Explanation for failure to renew the license. Your application for renewal will be evaluated taking into account the validity or reasonability of your justification for failing to renew. A Resolution will be issued therefor, so you can’t say it is simple procedure, you could actually be prevented from renewing your license.

Failing twice, in succession, to renew the license or registration within the time allowed, will perpetually bar you from applying for any firearm license.

This is how stringent the law is worded, but let’s await the guidance in the IRR.

Who May Be Issued a Firearm License?

As in most laws, if not all, there is entitlement and prohibition. Let’s discuss entitlement first before we go to prohibition. Let’s look into the policy of the state declared in the law:

Section 2. Declaration of State Policy. – It is the policy of the State to maintain peace and order and protect the people against violence. The State also recognizes the right of its qualified citizens to self-defense through, when it is the reasonable means to repel the unlawful aggression under the circumstances, the use of firearms.

xxx

So we see there’s a colatilla on firearm possession and ownership – qualified citizen.

Who are Qualified Citizens?

                                                         ARTICLE II

Section 4. Standards and Requisites for Issuance of and Obtaining a License to Own and Possess Firearms. – In order to qualify and acquire a license to own and possess a firearm or firearms and ammunition, the applicant must be a Filipino citizen, at least twenty-one (21) years old AND has gainful work, occupation or business or has filed an Income Tax Return (ITR) for the preceding year as proof of income, profession, business or occupation.

In addition, the applicant shall submit the following certification issued by appropriate authorities attesting the following:

(a) The applicant has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;

(b) The applicant has passed the psychiatric test administered by a PNP-accredited psychologist or psychiatrist;

(c) The applicant has passed the drug test conducted by an accredited and authorized drug testing laboratory or clinic;

(d) The applicant has passed a gun safety seminar which is administered by the PNP or a registered and authorized gun club;

(e) The applicant has filed in writing the application to possess a registered firearm which shall state the personal circumstances of the applicant;

(f) The applicant must present a police clearance from the city or municipality police office; and

(g) The applicant has not been convicted or is currently an accused in a pending criminal case before any court of law for a crime that is punishable with a penalty of more than two (2) years.

For purposes of this Act, an acquittal or permanent dismissal of a criminal case before the courts of law shall qualify the accused thereof to qualify and acquire a license.

The applicant shall pay the reasonable licensing fees as may be provided in the implementing rules and regulations of this Act.

An applicant who intends to possess a firearm owned by a juridical entity shall submit his/her duty detail order to the FEO of the PNP.

OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF FIREARMS

Subparagraph (a) makes sense. If a person has been convicted (I presume by final judgment to reconcile with legal presumption of innocence), it is doubtful if it serves the policy of the state of protecting its citizens if it allows him to possess or carry firearm/s, notwithstanding. Although, the doctrine of non-sequitor taught us against concluding that one who has committed a crime in the past will surely have committed a similar crime now or in the future, it is certainly not the intent of the law to take a gamble on one’s innate character (hoping it is immaculate), after having been convicted by final judgment, by putting a gun in his hands for his self-defense than protect the rest who are presumed to be law-abiding.

But what is moral turpitude?

"Moral turpitude has been defined in Can v. Galing citing In Re Basa and Tak Ng v. Republic as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals.

This is not to say that all convictions of the crime of homicide do not involve moral turpitude. Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances. While . . . generally but not always, crimes mala in se (inherently evil) involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita (simply because the prohibits) do not, it cannot always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not exist by classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum prohibitum, since there are crimes which are mala in se and yet but rarely involve moral turpitude and there are crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita only. It follows therefore, that moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the meaning of which must be left to the process of judicial inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached." (IRRI v. NLRC and Nestor Micosa, G.R. No. 97239 May 12, 1993).

LEDESMA DE JESUS-PARAS v. QUINCIANO VAILOCES, A.C. No. 439             April 12, 1961, illustrates, albeit inexhaustively, what moral turpitude is in layman’s tersm:

"Among the examples given of crimes of this nature by former Chief Justice Moran are the crime of seduction and the crime of concubinage.2 The crime of which respondent was convicted is falsification of public document, which is indeed of this nature, for the act is clearly contrary to justice, honesty and good morals. Hence, such crime involves moral turpitude. Indeed, it is well-settled that "embezzlement, forgery, robbery, and swindling are crimes which denote moral turpitude and, as a general rule, all crimes of which fraud is an element are looked on as involving moral turpitude." (58 C.J.S., 1206).

Subparagraphs (b), (c), and (d), while sensible, I doubt their integrity, especially drug testing, knowing who operate these drug testing centers, you can’t really say if they are reliable at all. For sure, this is money machine for operators.

Gun safety seminars by Gun Clubs? This is another life-saving design, but in reality, hardly implemented. Gun dealers don’t care if buyers eventually attend to their gun clubs for gun handling lessons. What when they’re paid already.

Subparagraph (f) may be replaced by NBI clearance, which is already a requirement as of this writing.           

Subparagraph (g) makes the prosecutors relatively powerful. Note that even a pendency of a criminal case carrying a penalty of more than two years disqualifies an applicant. Good for those who are legally provisioned. They can dismiss a complaint, not always by overt graft, but even by fairly swarming the prosecutor’s office with their legal team, or handing over a courtesy business card from top-notch law firms, quiet but effective. Other times, it’s just plain “money talks.”

Of course, juridical entity, too, are entitled to possess and own firearms. They include security agencies and LGUs.

Section 5. Ownership of Firearms and Ammunition by a Juridical Entity. – A juridical person maintaining its own security force may be issued a regular license to own and possess firearms and ammunition under the following conditions:

 (a) It must be Filipino-owned and duly registered with the Securities   and Exchange Commission (SEC);

 (b) It is current, operational and a continuing concern;

 (c) It has completed and submitted all its reportorial requirements to the SEC; and

 (d) It has paid all its income taxes for the year, as duly certified by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

The application shall be made in the name of the juridical person represented by its President or any of its officers mentioned below as duly authorized in a board resolution to that effect: Provided, That the officer applying for the juridical entity, shall possess all the qualifications required of a citizen applying for a license to possess firearms.

 

Other corporate officers eligible to represent the juridical person are: the vice president, treasurer, and board secretary.

Security agencies and LGUs shall be included in this category of licensed holders but shall be subject to additional requirements as may be required by the Chief of the PNP.

Section 6. Ownership of Firearms by the National Government. – All firearms owned by the National Government shall be registered with the FEO of the PNP in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Such registration shall be exempt from all duties and taxes that may otherwise be levied on other authorized owners of firearms. For reason of national security, firearms of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Coast Guard and other law enforcement agencies shall only be reported to the FEO of the PNP.

Another privilege, and more important, of a qualified citizen is to carry firearms outside residence, for which you have to secure a Permit to Carry firearms Outside Residence (PTCFOR). Since only qualified persons get to enjoy the privilege, it presupposes that for you to be issued a PTCFOR, you must be a license holder. Possession of PTCFOR does not obviate the requirement of a license. The latter is a prerequisite to a valid PTCFOR.

So who are qualified for PTCFOR?

Section 7. Carrying of Firearms Outside of Residence or Place of Business. – A permit to carry firearms outside of residence shall be issued by the Chief of the PNP or his/her duly authorized representative to any qualified person whose life is under actual threat or his/her life is in imminent danger due to the nature of his/her profession, occupation or business.

It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove that his/her life is under actual threat by submitting a threat assessment certificate from the PNP.

For purposes of this Act, the following professionals are considered to be in imminent danger due to the nature of their profession, occupation or business:

(a) Members of the Philippine Bar;

(b) Certified Public Accountants;

(c) Accredited Media Practitioners;

(d) Cashiers, Bank Tellers;

(e) Priests, Ministers, Rabbi, Imams;

(f) Physicians and Nurses;

(g) Engineers; and

(h) Businessmen, who by the nature of their business or undertaking, are exposed to high risk of being targets of criminal elements.

Having identified who the qualified persons are to the twin privilege of possession of firearm (in and outside of residence), let us now discuss the prohibited acts and their corresponding penalties.

ARTICLE V

PENAL PROVISIONS

Section 28. Unlawful Acquisition, or Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. – The unlawful acquisition, possession of firearms and ammunition shall be penalized as follows:

(a) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm;

(b) The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if three (3) or more small arms or Class-A light weapons are unlawfully acquired or possessed by any person;

(c) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a Class-A light weapon;

(d) The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall, unlawfully acquire or possess a Class-B light weapon;

(e) The penalty of one (1) degree higher than that provided in paragraphs (a) to (c) in this section shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm under any or combination of the following conditions:

(1) Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine;

(2) Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to guide the shooter to hit the target such as thermal weapon sight (TWS) and the like;

(3) Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or firearm silencer;

(4) Accompanied with an extra barrel; and

(5) Converted to be capable of firing full automatic bursts.

(f) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a small arm;

(g) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a small arm or Class-A light weapon. If the violation of this paragraph is committed by the same person charged with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a small arm, the former violation shall be absorbed by the latter;

(h) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a Class-A light weapon;

(i) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a Class-A light weapon. If the violation of this paragraph is committed by the same person charged with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a Class-A light weapon, the former violation shall be absorbed by the latter;

(j) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a Class-B light weapon; and

(k) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a Class-B light weapon. If the violation of this paragraph is committed by the same person charged with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a Class-B light weapon, the former violation shall be absorbed by the latter.

Section 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime. – The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance: Provided, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged: Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.

If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat.

If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense.

Section 30. Liability of Juridical Person. – The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum to prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer of/any public or private firm, company, corporation or entity who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding section, or willfully or knowingly allow any of them to use unregistered firearm or firearms without any legal authority to be carried outside of their residence in the course of their employment.

Section 31. Absence of Permit to Carry Outside of Residence. – The penalty of prision correccional and a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person who is licensed to own a firearm but who shall carry the registered firearm outside his/her residence without any legal authority therefor.

Section 32. Unlawful Manufacture, Importation, Sale or Disposition of Firearms or Ammunition or Parts Thereof, Machinery, Tool or Instrument Used or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or Parts Thereof. – The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully engage in the manufacture, importation, sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition, or a major part of a firearm or ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used by the same person in the manufacture of a firearm, ammunition, or a major part thereof.

The possession of any machinery, tool or instrument used directly in the manufacture of firearms, ammunition, or major parts thereof by any person whose business, employment or activity does not lawfully deal with the possession of such article, shall be prima facie evidence that such article is intended to be used in the unlawful or illegal manufacture of firearms, ammunition or parts thereof.

The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period to prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any laborer, worker or employee of a licensed firearms dealer who shall unlawfully take, sell or otherwise dispose of parts of firearms or ammunition which the company manufactures and sells, and other materials used by the company in the manufacture or sale of firearms or ammunition. The buyer or possessor of such stolen part or material, who is aware that such part or material was stolen, shall suffer the same penalty as the laborer, worker or employee.

If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entity, the penalty provided for in this section shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein who knowingly and willingly participated in the unlawful act.

Section 33. Arms Smuggling.– The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall engage or participate in arms smuggling as defined in this Act.

Section 34. Tampering, Obliteration or Alteration of Firearms Identification. – The penalty of prision correccional to prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall tamper, obliterate or alter without authority the barrel, slide, frame, receiver, cylinder, or bolt assembly, including the name of the maker, model, or serial number of any firearm, or who shall replace without authority the barrel, slide, frame, receiver, cylinder, or bolt assembly, including its individual or peculiar identifying characteristics essential in forensic examination of a firearm or light weapon.

The PNP shall place this information, including its individual or peculiar identifying characteristics into the database of integrated firearms identification system of the PNP Crime Laboratory for future use and identification of a particular firearm.

Section 35. Use of an Imitation Firearm. – An imitation firearm used in the commission of a crime shall be considered a real firearm as defined in this Act and the person who committed the crime shall be punished in accordance with this Act: Provided, That injuries caused on the occasion of the conduct of competitions, sports, games, or any recreation activities involving imitation firearms shall not be punishable under this Act.

Section 36. In Custodia Legis.– During the pendency of any case filed in violation of this Act, seized firearm, ammunition, or parts thereof, machinery, tools or instruments shall remain in the custody of the court. If the court decides that it has no adequate means to safely keep the same, the court shall issue an order to turn over to the PNP Crime Laboratory such firearm, ammunition, or parts thereof, machinery, tools or instruments in its custody during the pendency of the case and to produce the same to the court when so ordered. No bond shall be admitted for the release of the firearm, ammunition or parts thereof, machinery, tool or instrument. Any violation of this paragraph shall be punishable by prision mayor in its minimum period to prision mayor in its medium period.

 Section 37. Confiscation and Forfeiture. – The imposition of penalty for any violation of this Act shall carry with it the accessory penalty of confiscation and forfeiture of the firearm, ammunition, or parts thereof, machinery, tool or instrument in favor of the government which shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

Section 38. Liability for Planting Evidence. – The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall willfully and maliciously insert; place, and/or attach, directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert act, any firearm, or ammunition, or parts thereof in the person, house, effects, or in the immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose of implicating or incriminating the person, or imputing the commission of any violation of the provisions of this Act to said individual. If the person found guilty under this paragraph is a public officer or employee, such person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua

Increased Penalties

The law highlights the shift in policy direction vis-à-vis penalties imposed for violation of gun laws. The law has distinguished acquisition or possession from manufacture, importation, sale, or disposition, of firearms or ammunition or any major parts thereof, tools, machinery used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearm or ammunition, or any major part thereof.

In the former the law has maintained the penalty of prision mayor, but at varying degrees depending on the classification thereof whether small arms, Class A-light, or Class-B light weapons. It also increases the penalty by a degree if the firearm is loaded with ammunition or magazine, fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or silencer, with extra barrel, or capable of firing automatic bursts.

In the latter, the law has increased the penalty to “reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua” for unlawful manufacture, importation, sale, or disposition of firearms or ammunition, or any major parts thereof or machinery or tool used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms of ammunition, or any major parts thereof.

Grounds for revocation and other miscellaneous provisions

Section 39. Grounds for Revocation, Cancellation or Suspension of License or Permit. – The Chief of the PNP or his/her authorized representative may revoke, cancel or suspend a license or permit on the following grounds:

(a) Commission of a crime or offense involving the firearm, ammunition, of major parts thereof;

(b) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or any offense where the penalty carries an imprisonment of more than six (6) years;

(c) Loss of the firearm, ammunition, or any parts thereof through negligence;

(d) Carrying of the firearm, ammunition, or major parts thereof outside of residence or workplace without, the proper permit to carry the same;

(e) Carrying of the firearm, ammunition, or major parts thereof in prohibited places;

(f) Dismissal for cause from the service in case of government official and employee;

(g) Commission of any of the acts penalized under Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002″;

(h) Submission of falsified documents or misrepresentation in the application to obtain a license or permit;

(i) Noncompliance of reportorial requirements; and

(j) By virtue of a court order.

Section 40. Failure to Notify Lost or Stolen Firearm or Light Weapon. – A fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) shall be imposed upon any licensed firearm holder who fails to report to the FEO of the PNP that the subject firearm has been lost or stolen within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of discovery.

Likewise, a fine of Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person holding a valid firearm license who changes residence or office address other than that indicated in the license card and fails within a period of thirty (30) days from said transfer to notify the FEO of the PNP of such change of address.

 Section 41. Illegal Transfer/Registration of Firearms. – It shall be unlawful to transfer possession of any firearm to any person who has not yet obtained or secured the necessary license or permit thereof.

The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any person who shall violate the provision of the preceding paragraph. In addition, he/she shall be disqualified to apply for a license to possess other firearms and all his/her existing firearms licenses whether for purposes of commerce or possession, shall be revoked. If government-issued firearms, ammunition or major parts of firearms or light weapons are unlawfully disposed, sold or transferred by any law enforcement agent or public officer to private individuals, the penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed.

Any public officer or employee or any person who shall facilitate the registration of a firearm through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or submission of falsified documents shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional.

Note that this law does not repeal the prior laws (particulary PD 1866, and RA 8294) on firearms and ammunition in their entirety, so it helps to also read those laws and articles applying to them.