People v. Bituin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Generoso Bituin was charged with murder and violation of P.D. No. 9 (illegal possession of firearm) before the Court of First Instance of Leyte. The information alleged that on September 8, 1976, in Jaro, Leyte, Bituin, with intent to kill, evident premeditation, and treachery, shot and killed Victoriano Pore with an unlicensed home-made shotgun. The second charge was for illegal possession of the said firearm without a permit. Procedural History: The two charges were tried jointly. On February 21, 1980, the accused, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty to both informations. The trial judge, considering the mandatory death penalty under P.D. No. 9 when an illegally possessed firearm is used in a crime resulting in death, directed the prosecution to present evidence. Due to the prosecution's inability to present witnesses, the accused testified, admitting to killing Victoriano Pore because Pore had killed his brother, Benjamin Bituin, and that he used a home-made shotgun he had found. The trial court found the crime to be homicide, not murder, due to the absence of evidence of premeditation and treachery, and gave the accused the benefit of two mitigating circumstances: voluntary surrender and plea of guilty. The court sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty for homicide and the mandatory death penalty for illegal possession of a firearm. The Petition: The accused did not appeal the homicide conviction. The case is before the Supreme Court on automatic review solely concerning the conviction for illegal possession of a firearm and the imposition of the death penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the mandatory penalty of death under Section 1(a) of Presidential Decree No. 9 is applicable to the accused for illegal possession of a firearm used in the commission of homicide. Whether the information sufficiently alleged the elements required for the imposition of the death penalty under Presidential Decree 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 for illegal possession of a firearm.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of the mandatory death penalty under P.D. No. 9: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the reliance of the trial court on Section 1(a) of P.D. No. 9 for the imposition of the death penalty was misplaced. The said provision mandates the death penalty if the unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of crimes against persons, property, or chastity causing the death of the victim. However, 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. The information only alleged homicide. Furthermore, the Court noted that the crime committed by the appellant was an impulsive and isolated act of violence with no overtone of subversion, rebellion, or insurrection, which P.D. No. 9 contemplates. The Court reiterated its stance in People vs. Mamogay regarding the misapplication of the death penalty under similar circumstances. The Court emphasized that the specific allegations in the information are crucial for determining the applicable penalty, especially when a mandatory penalty is involved. On the sufficiency of the information for imposing the death penalty: The information in Criminal Case No. 3553, while alleging the use of an unlicensed firearm in killing Victoriano Pore, did not specifically allege the qualifying circumstances required by Section 1(a) of P.D. No. 9 to warrant the death penalty. The information alleged intent to kill, evident premeditation, and treachery for the murder charge, but the trial court found only homicide. Crucially, the charge for illegal possession of firearm did not incorporate the elements necessary to elevate the offense to one punishable by death under P.D. No. 9, such as the commission of murder or other specific crimes enumerated therein. The Court clarified that the information must clearly state the facts that bring the case within the purview of the death penalty provision of P.D. No. 9, which was not sufficiently done in this case. The Court also pointed out that P.D. No. 9 was promulgated in the context of Proclamation No. 1081, which dealt with national security concerns, and the appellant's act did not fall within that context.
Main Doctrine
The mandatory penalty of death under Presidential Decree No. 9 for illegal possession of a firearm used in the commission of a crime resulting in death is not applicable if the information does not allege murder with the use of the illegally possessed firearm, and the crime committed was an impulsive act of violence, not related to subversion or rebellion.