People vs. Ringor, Jr.

The use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of murder cannot be appreciated as a qualifying aggravating circumstance to impose the death penalty if the law elevating such use to an aggravating circumstance was enacted after the commission of the crime, as retroactive application in this instance would make it an ex post facto law. Furthermore, pursuant to the favorable retroactive application of R.A. No. 8294, an accused cannot be separately convicted of illegal possession of firearms when the unlicensed firearm was used to commit murder.

On June 23, 1994, Augusto Loreto Ringor, Jr. and two companions entered People's Restaurant in Baguio City. Ringor initially confronted the restaurant cook, Marcelino Florida, Jr., pulling his hair and poking a knife at his throat before momentarily leaving. Ringor returned shortly thereafter, brandished a .38 caliber revolver, and proceeded to the kitchen where he fired six successive shots at Florida from behind, killing him. Ringor fled but was apprehended nearby by an off-duty police officer who recovered the weapon. Forensic evidence confirmed the gun was recently fired, the slugs matched the weapon, and Ringor tested positive for gunpowder nitrates.

• The Incident: On June 23, 1994, Ringor entered People's Restaurant in Baguio City. He initially harassed the victim, Florida, by pulling his hair and threatening him with a knife. After leaving briefly, Ringor returned with a gun, walked into the kitchen, and fired six shots at Florida from behind.
• The Apprehension: Ringor fled the scene but was chased and apprehended by an off-duty police officer, SPO2 Fernandez, who recovered a .38 caliber "paltik" revolver with six empty cartridges from Ringor's possession.
• Forensic and Medical Findings: NBI tests confirmed Ringor's hands tested positive for nitrates, the recovered slugs were fired from his firearm, and the gun was unlicensed. The autopsy revealed that the victim sustained four gunshot wounds—three in the back and one in the front—with powder burns indicating the shots were fired from less than a meter away. The victim died of hypovolemic shock secondary to massive hemorrhage.
• The Defense Version: Ringor admitted shooting the victim but claimed self-defense. He testified that his companion quarreled with Florida, and when his companion drew a gun, Ringor disarmed him. Ringor alleged that Florida then emerged from the kitchen armed with a bolo and charged at him, prompting Ringor to shoot Florida with the gun he had taken from his companion.

• Petitioner (accused-appellant) argued that the trial court erred in convicting him of illegal possession of firearms and sentencing him accordingly.
• Petitioner contended that the trial court erred in convicting him of murder, implying his claim of self-defense should have been credited.
• Petitioner asserted that even assuming murder was committed, the trial court erred in sentencing him to death because there was no aggravating circumstance to raise the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death.

• Respondent (People of the Philippines) maintained that accused-appellant failed to prove the elements of self-defense, particularly unlawful aggression, as the victim was unarmed and shot from behind.
• Respondent argued that treachery was properly appreciated given the sudden and unexpected attack from behind.
• Respondent sought the affirmation of the conviction, though the Supreme Court independently assessed the penalties in light of R.A. No. 8294.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether accused-appellant acted in self-defense when he shot the victim.
  • Whether accused-appellant can be separately convicted of illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 when the unlicensed firearm was used to commit murder.
  • Whether the use of an unlicensed firearm can be appreciated as a qualifying aggravating circumstance to impose the death penalty for murder committed prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 8294.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that accused-appellant failed to prove self-defense. Unlawful aggression, the most essential element of self-defense, was absent. The prosecution's eyewitness testified that the victim was unarmed in the kitchen when shot from behind. Furthermore, the nature, location, and number of gunshot wounds—three at the back and a downward trajectory for the frontal wound—directly contradicted accused-appellant's claim that he shot the victim while lying prone as the victim charged with a bolo.
  • The Court ruled that accused-appellant cannot be separately convicted of illegal possession of firearms. Pursuant to R.A. No. 8294, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is considered merely a special aggravating circumstance and no longer a separate offense. Because R.A. No. 8294 is favorable to the accused by sparing him a separate conviction, it must be applied retroactively pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, resulting in the dismissal of the illegal possession charge.
  • The Court ruled that the use of an unlicensed firearm cannot be appreciated as a qualifying aggravating circumstance to elevate the penalty to death. At the time of the crime on June 23, 1994, the use of an unlicensed firearm was not yet an aggravating circumstance in murder. R.A. No. 8294, which made it an aggravating circumstance, took effect on July 6, 1997. Applying this new law to increase the penalty would make it an ex post facto law, as it is not favorable to the accused. Accordingly, with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty for murder under Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua.

• Self-Defense; Unlawful Aggression — For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim, (2) reasonable means employed to prevent or repel the aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is the most essential element; absent unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete. The Court applied this doctrine to reject the accused's claim, finding that the unarmed victim was shot from behind without any aggressive act threatening the accused.
• Treachery — There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The Court found treachery present because the accused fired six successive shots suddenly, without warning, and from behind, affording the victim no chance to flee or defend himself.
• Retroactive Application of Penal Laws; Ex Post Facto — Under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, penal laws that are favorable to the accused shall have retroactive effect. Conversely, a penal law cannot be given retroactive effect if it is unfavorable to the accused, as this would render it an ex post facto law. The Court applied R.A. No. 8294 retroactively to dismiss the separate charge for illegal possession (favorable), but refused to apply it retroactively to appreciate the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance to raise the penalty to death (unfavorable).

• "Well-settled is the rule that in interposing self-defense, the offender admits authorship of the killing. The onus probandi is thus shifted to him to prove the elements of self-defense and that the killing was justified; otherwise, having admitted the killing, conviction is inescapable."
• "In cases where murder or homicide is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, there can be no separate conviction for the crime of illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 in view of the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 8294. Thereunder, the use of unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is simply considered as an aggravating circumstance in the murder or homicide and no longer as a separate offense."
• "The amendatory law making the 'use of an unlicensed firearm' as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, cannot be applied here because the said provision of R.A. No. 8294 is not favorable to accused-appellant, lest it becomes an ex post facto law."

• People vs. Molina, 292 SCRA 742 — Followed. Held that under R.A. No. 8294, there can be no separate conviction for illegal possession of firearms when murder or homicide is committed with an unlicensed firearm, and that the use of an unlicensed firearm was not yet an aggravating circumstance in murder/homicide prior to R.A. 8294.
• People vs. Ronaldo Valdez, G.R. No. 127663, March 11, 1999 — Followed. Reiterated the ruling in People vs. Molina regarding the effect of R.A. No. 8294 on illegal possession of firearms cases involving murder or homicide.
• People vs. Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601 — Cited with approval. Established that prior to R.A. No. 8294, there was no law rendering the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in homicide or murder, and the unlicensed character of the weapon was not included in the inventory of aggravating circumstances in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended — Defines and penalizes the crime of murder with reclusion perpetua to death. The Court applied this provision, imposing reclusion perpetua due to the absence of any generic aggravating or mitigating circumstance.
• Article 63(2), Revised Penal Code — Provides that when the penalty prescribed by law has two indivisible periods and neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances are present, the lesser penalty shall be applied. The Court applied this to impose reclusion perpetua instead of death.
• Article 22, Revised Penal Code — Provides that penal laws favorable to the accused shall have retroactive effect. The Court applied this to give retroactive effect to R.A. No. 8294 in dismissing the separate charge for illegal possession.
• Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1866 — Penalizes illegal possession of firearms. The Court dismissed the charge under this decree in light of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294.
• Section 1, Republic Act No. 8294 — Amends P.D. No. 1866, providing that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance, and no separate conviction for illegal possession shall be imposed. The Court applied this provision retroactively to dismiss the separate charge but refused to apply it to aggravate the murder penalty due to ex post facto constraints.

Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. Davide, Jr., C.J. and Panganiban, J., in the result.