People v. Mamogay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 3, 1977, in Abuyog, Leyte, Samuel Mamogay y Maba alias "Manuel" shot and killed Lucrecio Garzola with a homemade firearm known as "Latong." Mamogay was charged with murder (Criminal Case No. 3552) and illegal possession of a firearm (Criminal Case No. 3553). Procedural History: Both cases were tried jointly. On December 3, 1979, the accused pleaded guilty to both charges. The prosecution was required to present evidence but failed to do so. The accused testified, explaining his actions and admitting his confession was voluntary after surrender. The Petition: The case before the Supreme Court is the automatic review of the decision in Criminal Case No. 3553 for illegal possession of firearms, where the trial court imposed the death penalty. No appeal was interposed in the murder case.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty for illegal possession of a firearm under P.D. No. 9. Whether the information sufficiently alleged the elements to warrant the imposition of the death penalty under P.D. No. 9.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment under review, sentencing the appellant 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, plus costs, for illegal possession of a firearm. The death penalty was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the death penalty for illegal possession of a firearm under P.D. No. 9: The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. The reliance on Section 1(a) of P.D. No. 9 was misplaced because the information in Criminal Case No. 3553, to which the appellant pleaded guilty, did not allege murder with the use of the illegally possessed firearm. This specific circumstance is necessary to qualify the offense under Section 1(a) of P.D. No. 9. The Court emphasized that P.D. No. 9 contemplates crimes with overtones of subversion, rebellion, or insurrection, which was not the case here, as the appellant's act was an impulsive and isolated act of violence. The Court cited People vs. Purisima to support this interpretation. Therefore, the appellant is still liable for illegal possession of a firearm, but it should be penalized under Section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by R.A. No. 4, not under the stringent provisions of P.D. No. 9. On the sufficiency of the information for the death penalty under P.D. No. 9: The information in Criminal Case No. 3553 merely alleged the unlawful possession of an unlicensed homemade firearm. It did not include the crucial element of using such a firearm in the commission of crimes against persons, property, or chastity causing death, nor did it allege assault upon or resistance to persons in authority resulting in death, which are conditions for the application of the death penalty under Section 1(a) of P.D. No. 9. Consequently, the information was insufficient to sustain the imposition of the death penalty under the said decree.
Main Doctrine
The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty for illegal possession of a firearm under P.D. No. 9 when the information did not allege murder with the use of the illegally possessed firearm, which is a necessary circumstance to qualify the offense under Section 1(a) of P.D. No. 9. The offense should be penalized under Section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code.