Rama: A sequel

LAST Monday’s issue on how the existing gun ban is so stupid that it actually leads to a lower jail sentence for illegal possession of firearm violators generated so much of chatter in online forums that I had to do a sequel.

For those who missed it, it’s at http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/rama-gun-ban-and-jurisprudence or, if you are in facebook and currently logged on, click http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=13854&uid=47802646387.

Let me begin by saying that the ruling we discussed is as final as final gets, having been based on a previous Supreme Court en banc decision–Agote vs. Lorenzo–G.R. No. 142675; July 22, 2005.

Click here for Election 2010 updates

An en banc decision is a ruling passed upon by the entire Supreme Court, with all the justices of its divisions sitting as one body. It is the proverbial last word on a given legal issue and the High Court very rarely reverses rulings made en banc.

Agote, on the other hand, is Vicente Agote y Matol who, last April 27, 1996, was arrested while possessing a loaded .38 paltik revolver along V. Mapa Ext., Sta. Mesa, Manila, in violation of a gun ban the Comelec imposed due to the SK elections the next month.

Lorenzo, meanwhile, is Judge Manuel Lorenzo who, while presiding over the 43rd branch of the Regional Trial Court in Manila, convicted Agote in May 18, 1999 for illegal possession of firearm under Presidential Decree (PD) 1866.

Now, those among you who have attended my firearm law dialogues will probably remember that PD 1866, enacted during the Marcos regime, prescribed really draconian penalties for the illegal possession of firearms. The general presumption, then, was that people with guns intend to rebel against Marcos and his martial law.

You will also remember that Republic Act (RA) 8294—which significantly amended PD 1866–did not come until June 6, 1997, one year and two months after Agote’s arrest.

RA 8294 classifies guns into low- and high-powered; it directed that penalties be based on the classification of the firearms possessed and significantly reduces the penalties imposed.

It carries a provision that says a person may only be charged with illegal possession of a firearm if no other crime has been committed.

This means that if an illegally obtained gun is used in a crime, it makes the main charge complex and increases the imposable penalty, much like robbery with homicide or abduction and rape. To me, this makes perfect sense because the illegal possession of a weapon is always only incidental to another crime.

With PD 1866 being the law of the land at the time, Agote was arrested and charged. Lorenzo convicted Agote for illegal possession in 1999 and sentenced him to 10 to 18 years in prison.

He was slapped another one year for violating the gun ban.

Agote filed a motion for reconsideration and pleaded that the enactment of RA 8294 in 1997 be made retroactive to his conviction.

Lorenzo denied it in July 15 of the same year, compelling Agote to lodge an appeal before the appellate court and, subsequently, before the High Court

The High Court, in its July 22, 2005 ruling, reversed the lower court, ruled that the passing of RA 8294 indeed has a retroactive effect on the conviction.

More significantly, it declared that Agote can only be convicted for violating the gun ban because of the provisions of the more recent law–that an illegal possession of a firearm case is only warranted if no other crime has been committed by the respondent.

And since Agote was arrested for violating the firearm ban, he must be charged for this violation, with the illegal possession of the firearm serving as an aggravating circumstance in the contemplation of the penalty.

“Our task is constitutionally confined only to applying the law and jurisprudence to the proven facts, and we have done so in this case,” the Supreme Court declared.

(knrama@gmail.com)