Appellee: People of the Philippines Appellant: Walpan Ladjaalam alias Warpan Ponente: J.

Panganiban FACTS: Four Informations were filed against appellant Walpan Ladjaalam in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City (Branch 16), three of which he was found guilty, to wit: 1) maintaining a drug den in violation of Section 15-A, Article III, of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972); 2) illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act. No. 8294; and 3) direct assault with multiple attempted homicide. The following information was provided by the prosecution: 1) In the afternoon of September 24, 1997, more than thirty (30) policemen proceeded to the house of appellant and his wife to serve the search warrant when they were met by a volley of gunfire coming from the second floor of the said house. They saw that it was the appellant who fired the M14 rifle towards them. 2) After gaining entrance, two of the police officers proceeded to the second floor where they earlier saw appellant firing the rifle. As he noticed their presence, the appellant jumped from the window to the roof of a neighboring house. He was subsequently arrested at the back of his house after a brief chase. 3) Several firearms and ammunitions were recovered from appellants house. Also found was a pencil case with fifty (50) folded aluminum foils inside, each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride. 4) A paraffin test was conducted and the casts taken both hands of the appellant yielded positive for gunpowder nitrates. 5) Records show that appellant had not filed any application for license to possess firearm and ammunition, nor has he been given authority to carry firearms. ISSUE: Whether or not such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. HELD: No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or ammunition shall be penalized, unless no other crime was committed. Furthermore, if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Since the crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance.

The accused was convicted of the crime of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an M14 rifle to police men who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant. Further, he was also convicted for illegal possession of firearm. HELD:

RA no. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that the person arrested committed no other crime. Furthermore, if the person is held liable for murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance, but not a separate offense. Hence, where an accused was convicted of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an unlicensed M14 rifle at several policemen who were about to serve a search warrant, he cannot be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms. Neither can such unlawful act be considered to have aggravated the direct assault.

CELINO, SR. vs. CA Case Digest ANGEL CELINO, SR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. G.R. No. 170562 June 29, 2007 FACTS: Two separate informations were filed before the RTC charging petitioner with violation of the gunban and illegal possession of firearms. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash contending that he "cannot be prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms (R.A. 8294) . . . if he was also charged of having committed another crime of [sic] violating the Comelec gun ban under the same set of facts. The trial court denied the motion to quash on the ground that "the other offense charged . . . is not one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294 . . . ." The denial was affirmed on appeal. Hence this petition, where petitioner contends that the mere filing of an information for gun ban violation against him necessarily bars his prosecution for illegal possession of firearms. ISSUE: Did the court err in denying the Motion to Quash? HELD: No. The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that "no other crime was committed by the person arrested." If the intention of the law in the second paragraph were to refer only to homicide and murder, it should have expressly said so. As accusation is not synonymous with guilt, there is yet no showing that petitioner did in fact commit the other crime charged. Consequently, the proviso does not yet apply. In sum, when the other offense involved is one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, any information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed because the illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense, either considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat. Conversely, when the other offense involved is not one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted.

Brief Facts: Two separate Information were filed against the petitioner, Angel Celino: one for violation of the Comelec gun ban; the other, for Illegal Possession of Firearm under R.A. 8294. After pleading not guilty to the former, he filed a Motion to Quash on the latter contending that he cannot be prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms x x x if he was also charged of having committed another crime of [sic] violating the Comelec gun ban under the same set of facts x x x.

Issue: Whether the mere filing of an information for gun ban violation against him necessarily bars his prosecution for illegal possession of firearm because of the provision of the law that "Provided, however,That no other crime was committed by the person arrested." Ruling: Ruling against the petitioner, the High Court explained that he can be convicted of illegal possession of firearms, provided no other crime wascommitted by the person arrested. The word committed taken in its ordinary sense, and in light of the Constitutional presumption of innocence,necessarily implies a prior determination of guilt by final conviction resulting from successful prosecution or voluntary admission. Citing the case of People v. Valdez (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that all pending cases involving illegal possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted and tried if no other crimes expressly indicated in Republic Act No. 8294 are involved x x x. In sum, when the other offense involved is one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, any information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed because the illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense, either considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide,or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coupdetat. Conversely, when the other offense involved is not one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted.