Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > June 1982 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-55418-19 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL M. MAMOGAY:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. L-55418-19. June 29, 1982.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAMUEL MAMOGAY y MABA alias "MANUEL", Accused-Appellant.

SYNOPSIS


For shouting and killing Lucrecio Garsola with a homemade firearm known as "Latong," Criminal Case No. 3552 for murder and Criminal Case No. 3553 for violation of Presidential Decree No. 9 were filed against the accused. He pleaded guilty to both charges and admitted the voluntariness of his confession made before the police after he had surrendered. Given the benefit of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty, he was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence for murder and to the mandatory penalty of death for illegal possession of firearm. On review of the death penalty imposed in Criminal Case 3553, the Supreme Court ruled that the reliance by the trial court on the provisions of Sec. 1(a) of Presidential Decree No. 9 was misplaced because the information to which appellant had pleaded guilty and on the basis of which he was sentenced to death, did not allege murder with the use of the illegally possessed firearm — a circumstance necessary to qualify the offense to make it fall under Sec. 1(a) of the decree. The crime committed was an impulsive and isolated act of violence with no overtone of subversion, rebellion or insurrection which Presidential Decree No. 9 contemplates. Appellant was held guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms penalized under Sec. 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by R.A. No. 4 and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for three (3) years and 1 day as minimum to five (5) years as maximum with a fine of P3,000 and payment of the costs.

Judgment modified.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM; PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.9; FAILURE TO ALLEGE THAT MURDER WAS COMMITTED WITH THE USE OF THE ILLEGALLY POSSESSED FIREARM REMOVES OFFENSE FROM THE OPERATION OF P.D. NO. 9; OFFENSE COMMITTED PUNISHABLE UNDER THE REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. — The reliance by the trial court on the provisions of Sec. 1(a) of P.D. No. 9 was misplaced because the information in Criminal Case No. 3553 to which appellant had pleaded guilty and on the basis of which he was sentenced to death, does not allege murder with the use of the illegally possessed firearm — a circumstance necessary to qualify the offense to make it fall under Sec. 1(a) of P.D. No. 9. It must also be mentioned that the crime committed by the appellant was an impulsive and isolated act of violence with no overtone of subversion, rebellion, insurrection, etc. which P.D. No. 9 contemplates. The foregoing notwithstanding, the appellant is still liable for illegal possession of firearm penalized by Sec. 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by R.A. No. 4.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


On November 3, 1977, in Abuyog, Leyte, Samuel Mamogay shot and killed Lucrecio Garzola with a home-made firearm known as "Latong." Thereafter, he was charged in the Court of First Instance of Leyte of the following crimes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In Criminal Case No. 3552 of murder committed according to the information as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 3rd day of November, 1977, in the Municipality of Abuyog, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, shot and wound one LUCRECIO GARZOLA with the use of an illegally possessed homemade firearm known as ‘Latong’ which said accused had purposely provided himself, thereby causing and inflicting upon the said Lucrecio Garzola multiple fatal wounds in the different part of his body which caused his death shortly thereafter."cralaw virtua1aw library

And in Criminal Case No. 3553 of violation of P.D. No. 9 (illegal possession of firearm) as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 3rd day of November, 1977, in the Municipality of Abuyog, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-name accused, with deliberate intent, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one unlicensed homemade firearm locally known as ‘Latong’ without permit and/or license from the Government."cralaw virtua1aw library

Both cases were tried jointly by the court a quo. On December 3, 1979, the accused, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty to both charges. Nonetheless, the judge prudently and wisely required the prosecution to present its evidence. Despite several postponements the prosecution was unable to do so because its witnesses could not be contacted. As a last resort the accused, assisted by his counsel, took the witness stand and explained the reasons why he shot and killed Garzola. He also admitted that his written confession before the police was voluntary after he had surrendered.

The court a quo gave the accused the benefit of two mitigating circumstances for both crimes, namely: voluntary surrender and plea of guilty.

In Criminal Case No. 3552 for murder, he was sentenced to an "indeterminate penalty of Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor, maximum, to Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) Months of reclusion temporal, medium, and to indemnify the heirs of Lucrecio Garzola the sum of P12,000.00 without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to suffer all the accessory penalties provided by law."cralaw virtua1aw library

In Criminal Case No. 3553 for illegal possession of firearms, he was sentenced "to the mandatory penalty of death."cralaw virtua1aw library

No appeal has been interposed in Criminal Case No. 3552 for murder; this decision is limited to Criminal Case No. 3553 which is before Us on automatic review because of the death penalty imposed by the trial court.

Both Atty. Ancheta K. Tan, counsel de oficio of the appellant, and the Solicitor General are one in stating that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty in the firearm case. We agree.

In sentencing the appellant to die, the trial court relied on the provisions of Sec. 1 (a) of P.D. No. 9 which reads as follows:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"1. Any violation of the aforesaid General Orders Nos. 6 and 7 is unlawful and the violator shall, upon conviction suffer:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) The mandatory penalty of death by a firing squad or electrocution as a military court/tribunal/commission may direct, if the firearm involved in the violation is unlicensed and is attended by assault upon, or resistance to persons in authority or their agents in the performance of their official functions resulting in death to said persons in authority or their agent; or if such unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of crimes against persons, property or chastity causing the death of the victim, or used in violation of any other General Orders and/or Letters of Instructions promulgated under said Proclamation No. 1081."cralaw virtua1aw library

The reliance was misplaced because the information in Criminal Case No. 3553 to which the appellant had pleaded guilty and on the basis of which he was sentenced to death, does not allege murder with the use of the illegally possessed firearm — a circumstance necessary to qualify the offense to make it fall under Sec. 1 (a) of P.D. No. 9. It must also be mentioned that the crime committed by the appellant was an impulsive and isolated act of violence with no overtone of subversion, rebellion, insurrection, etc. which P.D. No. 9 contemplates. (See People v. Purisima, No. L-42050-66, No. 20, 1978, 86 SCRA 542.)

The foregoing notwithstanding, the appellant is still liable for illegal possession of firearm penalized by Sec. 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by R.A. No. 4.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby modified and as recommended by the Solicitor General the appellant is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Three (3) Years and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Five (5) Years, as maximum, and a fine of P3,000.00; and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. P-2357 June 19, 1982 - ROSALINDA D. MORALES v. RENATO LOTUACO, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 576

  • G.R. Nos. 38515-16 June 19, 1982 - VICENTE G. ACABAN v. WENCESLAO M. ORTEGA, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 586

  • G.R. No. L-40163 June 19, 1982 - LEVITON INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. SERAFIN SALVADOR, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 591

  • G.R. No. L-45215 June 19, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO HONTANOSAS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 599

  • G.R. No. 51047 June 19, 1982 - JOVITA GO, ET AL. v. CARIDAD A. TROCINO and COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 607

  • G.R. No. L-53971 June 19, 1982 - MARINA G. VERGARA, ET AL. v. LAUREANO OCUMEN, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 610

  • G.R. No. L-55513 June 19, 1982 - VIRGILIO SANCHEZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    199 Phil. 617

  • G.R. No. L-57032 June 19, 1982 - CARDINAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. AMADOR T. VALLEJOS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 635

  • G.R. No. L-57848 June 19, 1982 - RAFAEL E. MANINANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 640

  • G.R. No. L-51257 June 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO E. NISMAL

    199 Phil. 649

  • Adm. Case No. 1104 June 29, 1982 - DOMINGA PABILIN v. DOMINGO C. LAGULA

  • Adm. Case No. 1660 June 29, 1982 - TEOFISTA G. FLORES VDA. DE CHENG v. BENJAMIN O. CARLOS

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 1381, 1633, 1645 & 2042 June 29, 1982 - JESUS BANAWA v. GREGORIO B. DE JESUS

  • Adm. Matter No. 1513-MJ June 29, 1982 - BRAULIO VILLASIS v. PRISCO PABATAO

  • Adm. Matter No. 1539-MJ June 29, 1982 - MAURECIA OPUS v. VICENTE BORNIA

  • Adm. Matter No. 1665-MJ June 19, 1982 - WILMOR HADAP, ET AL. v. ABELARDO LEE

  • Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ June 29, 1982 - ESTANISLAO LAPENA, JR. v. MARTONINO MARCOS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-1974 June 29, 1982 - PABLO L. BAROLA v. VICTORIANO L. ABOGATAL

  • Adm. Matter No. P-2328 June 29, 1982 - ERNESTO P. VALENCIA v. SALVADOR LOPEZ, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. 2358-MJ June 29, 1982 - SALUD CLEMENTE-DE GUZMAN v. TIRSO REYES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 2729-CFI June 29, 1982 - GREGORIA LAGARET, ET AL. v. TAGO M. BANTUAS

  • Adm. Matter No. 2758-P June 29, 1982 - SOL M. SIPIN v. GLORIA GIRONELLA

  • G.R. No. L-26537 June 29, 1982 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS v. HERMINIO A. ASTORGA

  • G.R. No. L-28323 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO APAT

  • G.R. No. L-28636 June 29, 1982 - LEO Y. MABUHAY v. JESUS V. SERIÑA

  • G.R. No. L-28717 June 29, 1982 - ESCOLASTICO DE GUZMAN v. NUMERIANO CUEVAS, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-29077 June 29, 1982 - LOURDES MARCELO v. JOSE C. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31675 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN ANTILLON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33157 June 29, 1982 - BENITO H. LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33411 June 29, 1982 - NORTHERN LINES, INC. v. BENJAMIN SEBASTIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35390 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINO GREGORIO

  • G.R. No. L-36925 June 29, 1982 - IN RE: JOSE ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-38318 June 29, 1982 - AURORA RAYMUNDO v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE and HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39051 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. L-39387 June 29, 1982 - PAMPANGA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40183 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO L. FRANCO

  • G.R. No. L-40726 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TELESFORO MACATANGAY

  • G.R. No. L-41080 June 29, 1982 - JOSE ESTANISLAO v. REYNALDO P. HONRADO, STA. ANA & SONS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42630 June 29, 1982 - JESUS SIERBO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42646 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO "BOY" PALAPAL

  • G.R. No. L-43888 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADOLFO MANLABAO

  • G.R. No. L-46199 June 29, 1982 - DOMINGO O. BAUTISTA v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49623 June 29, 1982 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51641 June 29, 1982 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES v. JACOBO C. CLAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51767 June 29, 1982 - LETICIA CO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-53721 June 29, 1982 - PAN-PHILIPPINE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55029 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO GAMET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55289 June 29, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CANDIDO P. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-55418-19 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL M. MAMOGAY

  • G.R. Nos. L-55485-86 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENEROSO BITUIN

  • G.R. No. L-57102 June 29, 1982 - HILARIO GAMIAO, ET AL. v. ANDRES B. PLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-57597, 57598 & 57599 June 29, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR E. ESPAÑOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58319 June 29, 1982 - PATRICIA PACIENTE v. AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58341 June 29, 1982 - PEPSI-COLA LABOR UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60326 June 29, 1982 - IN RE: RAMON A. BERNAL v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60685 June 29, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AUGUSTO MINA, ET AL.