Evangelista vs. Sistoza

Under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294, where an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of another crime, the accused cannot be convicted of the separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms; and because such a construction is favorable to the accused, it is given retroactive effect, the Court's interpretation of the law forming part of the law itself.

Petitioner Danilo Evangelista y Solomon was a prisoner under the custody of respondent Hon. Pedro Sistoza, Director of the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila. The governing statutory backdrop is Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, which took effect on July 6, 1997 and restructured the penalties for unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition, or possession of firearms by, among other things, lowering the penalty for illegal possession of a low powered firearm and qualifying that offense with the proviso that "no other crime was committed."

Petitioner Danilo Evangelista y Solomon was indicted before Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila for robbery and for illegal possession of the firearm used in the commission of that robbery. After trial, he was convicted of both crimes. In Criminal Case No. 92-109854 for illegal possession of firearms, the trial court sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eighteen (18) years of reclusion temporal as minimum to reclusion perpetua as maximum. In Criminal Case No. 92-109710 for robbery, the trial court imposed upon him an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision with modification. The appellate court sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and eight (8) months of prision mayor as maximum in Criminal Case No. 92-109710, and to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum in Criminal Case No. 92-109854, affirming the decision in all other respects.

On July 6, 1997, Republic Act No. 8294 took effect. The new law effectively reduced the imposable penalty for the offense of illegal possession of firearms, such that for the illegal possession of a low powered firearm the penalty became prision correccional in its maximum period, with a duration of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, and a fine of not less than Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00). Petitioner sought the retroactive application of this provision. He contended that the penalty for illegal possession of firearms had been lowered to imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, and that the two terms of imprisonment — four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and eight (8) months of prision mayor as maximum for robbery, and four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years for illegal possession of firearms — were to be served simultaneously. As certified by the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, petitioner had by October 18, 2000 already served a total of nine (9) years and three (3) months, computed with good conduct time allowance. On that basis he claimed to have served the maximum period of the two prison terms imposed upon him and to be entitled to restoration to liberty.

• Retroactive Application of Republic Act No. 8294: Petitioner contended that by virtue of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294, the penalty of imprisonment imposed upon him for the offense of illegal possession of firearms, as modified by the Court of Appeals, had been lowered to imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, and that the reduced penalty should be applied retroactively in his favor.
• Simultaneous Service of the Two Prison Terms: Petitioner maintained that the two terms of imprisonment imposed upon him — one for robbery and one for illegal possession of firearms — were to be served simultaneously, such that having already served a total of nine (9) years and three (3) months with good conduct time allowance, he had already served the maximum period of both prison terms and was entitled to be restored to liberty.

• No Objection to the Petition: The Office of the Solicitor General did not interpose any objection to the petition and itself pointed out that should petitioner's case be reviewed in light of recent jurisprudence, petitioner may be found guilty only of the crime of robbery and would be exonerated of the offense of illegal possession of firearm.

• Simultaneous Service of Penalties: Whether the two prison terms imposed upon petitioner, one for robbery and one for illegal possession of firearms, are to be served simultaneously, such that his nine (9) years and three (3) months of incarceration already satisfies the maximum imposable penalties for both crimes.
• Retroactive Application of Republic Act No. 8294 and Separate Conviction for Illegal Possession: Whether, in light of Republic Act No. 8294 and the ruling in People vs. Walpan Ladjaalam, petitioner may still be held liable for the separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms notwithstanding that another crime was committed with the unlicensed firearm, and whether the favorable construction of that law applies retroactively to entitle him to release.

• Simultaneous Service of Penalties: No. Under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, penalties that cannot be served simultaneously are executed successively in the order of their respective severity, so that the robbery sentence had to be served first and petitioner's maximum incarceration was twelve (12) years and eight (8) months.
• Retroactive Application of Republic Act No. 8294 and Separate Conviction for Illegal Possession: Yes. Because another crime was committed with the unlicensed firearm, no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms lies under Republic Act No. 8294 as construed in People vs. Ladjaalam, and petitioner is deemed to have committed only robbery, for which he has already served more than the maximum penalty of six (6) years and eight (8) months.

• Simultaneous Service of Penalties: Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code provides that when the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit; otherwise, the penalties shall be executed successively, following the order of their respective severity. Terms of imprisonment must therefore be served successively, and the Court has held that in the service of two prison terms, the second sentence does not commence to run until the expiration of the first. Accordingly, the penalty for robbery — imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and eight (8) months of prision mayor as maximum — had to be served by petitioner first before service of the second sentence for illegal possession of a low powered firearm, which is imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, could even commence. The maximum period of petitioner's incarceration was thus twelve (12) years and eight (8) months, and his service of nine (9) years and three (3) months was not sufficient to meet that maximum. He could not be released on that basis.

• Retroactive Application of Republic Act No. 8294 and Separate Conviction for Illegal Possession: Republic Act No. 8294, which took effect on July 6, 1997, amended Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 by imposing the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) upon any person who shall unlawfully possess any low powered firearm, "Provided, That no other crime was committed." In People vs. Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil alias "Warpan", the Court held that the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms only if no other crime was committed by the person arrested; conversely stated, if another crime was committed by the accused, he cannot be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms. A simple reading of the statute shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms; where the other crime is murder or homicide, illegal possession becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. The proviso in the second paragraph is not limited to murder and homicide, for had that been the legislative intention it would have been expressly stated, as it was in the third paragraph; where the law does not distinguish, neither should the Court. Penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused, and the plain meaning of Republic Act No. 8294's language is most favorable to the accused. Since robbery was committed with the unlicensed firearm, petitioner could no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms and may be found guilty only of robbery. The Court's interpretation of laws forms part of the law of the land as much as the letters of the laws themselves, and in view of the well-entrenched rule that criminal laws shall be given retroactive effect if favorable to the accused, petitioner is deemed to have committed only the crime of robbery, for which he has already served more than the maximum period of the penalty imposed upon him.

• Successive Service of Sentences under Article 70, Revised Penal Code — When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit; otherwise, the penalties shall be executed successively, following the order of their respective severity. Terms of imprisonment must be served successively, and the second sentence does not commence to run until the expiration of the first. The Court applied this rule to hold that petitioner's robbery sentence had to be served before the firearms sentence could begin, fixing his maximum incarceration at twelve (12) years and eight (8) months.

• No Separate Conviction for Simple Illegal Possession of Firearms Where Another Crime Is Committed (Ladjaalam Doctrine) — Under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294, the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms provided that no other crime was committed by the person arrested; conversely, if another crime was committed by the accused, he cannot be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms. If the unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms; if the other crime is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance. The proviso is not confined to murder and homicide, because where the law does not distinguish, neither should the Court. Applied here, petitioner's robbery conviction precluded a separate conviction for illegal possession of the firearm used in that robbery.

• Liberal Construction of Penal Laws in Favor of the Accused — Penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused, and the plain meaning of Republic Act No. 8294's language is most favorable to the accused. The Court relied on this canon in adopting the construction that exonerated petitioner of the separate firearms offense.

• Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws Favorable to the Accused — Criminal laws shall be given retroactive effect if favorable to the accused. Because the construction of Republic Act No. 8294 eliminated the separate firearms offense, petitioner was deemed to have committed only robbery, for which he had already served more than the maximum penalty.

• Judicial Decisions as Part of the Law of the Land — Under Article 8 of the Civil Code, judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of the legal system of the Philippines. The Court's interpretation of Republic Act No. 8294 therefore forms part of the said law and supplies the basis for its retroactive application to petitioner.

• "A simple reading thereof shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the 'other crime' is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Ladjaalam, states the ratio decidendi on which petitioner's exoneration rests: the use of an unlicensed firearm in another crime absorbs the separate offense of simple illegal possession.
• "Verily, where the law does not distinguish, neither should we." — The Court adopted this canon to reject the trial court's limitation of the proviso in the second paragraph of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294 to murder and homicide, extending the absorption rule to any other crime, including robbery.
• "When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he should serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit; otherwise said penalties shall be executed successively, following the order of their respective severity." — This is the Court's formulation of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, the provision that defeated petitioner's claim that his two prison terms ran concurrently.
• "It bears reiterating that this Court's interpretation of laws are as much a part of the law of the land as the letters of the laws themselves." — The Court used this principle, anchored on Article 8 of the Civil Code, to explain why its construction of Republic Act No. 8294 operated retroactively in petitioner's favor.

• People vs. Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil alias "Warpan", G.R. Nos. 136149-51, September 19, 2000 — The controlling precedent. Its construction of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8294 — that no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms lies where another crime was committed — supplied the ground for exonerating petitioner of the firearms charge and reducing his liability to robbery alone.
• People vs. Medina, 59 Phil. 134, 138 (1933) — Cited in support of the rule that when the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, they are served simultaneously only if the nature of the penalties will so permit; otherwise they are executed successively in the order of their severity.
• Gordon vs. Wolfe, 6 Phil. 76, 78 (1906) — Cited for the holding that in the service of two prison terms, the second sentence did not commence to run until the expiration of the first.
• Obosa vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 281, 290 (1997) — Cited alongside Gordon vs. Wolfe for the same rule on the successive service of prison terms, reinforcing the rejection of petitioner's simultaneity argument.

• Article 70, Revised Penal Code — Governs the successive service of sentences. It provides that when the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit; otherwise the penalties shall be executed successively, following the order of their respective severity. The Court applied it to require petitioner to serve the robbery sentence first, making the second sentence for illegal possession of firearms commence only upon expiration of the first, and fixing the maximum period of incarceration at twelve (12) years and eight (8) months.
• Section 1, Republic Act No. 8294 — Amended Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 by imposing the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) for unlawful possession of a low powered firearm, "Provided, That no other crime was committed," and a heavier penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) for high powered firearms, likewise qualified by the proviso that no other crime was committed. The Court construed the proviso to bar a separate conviction for simple illegal possession of firearms where another crime was committed, and applied the reduced penalty retroactively in petitioner's favor.
• Article 8, Civil Code — Provides that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. The Court invoked it to hold that its interpretation of Republic Act No. 8294 forms part of the law itself, thereby supporting the retroactive application of that interpretation to petitioner.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.