People v Ladjaalam

TOPIC: Illegal possession of firearms G.R. Nos. 136149-51. September 19, 2000 People v. Walpan Ladjaalam y Milapil

Facts: Four Informations were filed against appellant Walpan Ladjaalam in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City (Branch 16), three of which he was found guilty, to wit: 1) Maintaining a drug den in violation of Section 15-A, Article III, of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972); - In his house in Rio Hondo, Zamboanga City. 2) Illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act. No. 8294; - then armed with M-14 Armalite Rifles, M-16 Armalite Rifles and other assorted firearms and explosives 3) Direct assault with multiple attempted homicide.-For 4) Charged with illegal possession of drugs – For methamphetamine hydrochloride (Shabu) He was with his co-accused wife Nur-in Ladjaalam and Ahmad Sailabbi y Hajaraini but the cases were dismissed for them upon reinvestigation. The following information was provided by the prosecution:  In the afternoon of September 24, 1997, more than thirty (30) policemen proceeded to the house of appellant and his wife to serve the search warrant when they were met by a volley of gunfire coming from the second floor of the said house.  They saw that it was the appellant who fired the M14 rifle towards them.  Policemen took cover in the concrete fence. And slowly went inside the House  After gaining entrance, they saw two old women and young girl and 3 children.  Upon seeing to policemen 1 old woman went up with a child.  This opted one of this policeman to shout “Don’t shoot the second floor! There are children” The two of the police officers proceeded to the second floor where they earlier saw appellant firing the rifle.  As he noticed their presence, the appellant went inside the bathroom, dismantled the window, and jumped from the window to the roof of a neighboring house.  He was subsequently arrested at the back of his house after a brief chase.  Several firearms and ammunitions were recovered from appellant’s house.  Also found was a pencil case with fifty (50) folded aluminum foils inside, each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride.  A paraffin test was conducted and the casts taken both hands of the appellant yielded positive for gunpowder nitrates.  Records show that appellant had not filed any application for license to possess firearm and ammunition, nor has he been given authority to carry firearms. Issues: Whether or not such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

Ruling: NOPE. The appealed Decision was affirmed with modifications. Appellant is found guilty only of two offenses: (1) Direct assault and multiple attempted homicide with the use of a weapon and (2) Maintaining a drug den. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or ammunition shall be penalized, “unless no other crime was committed”. Furthermore, if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Since the crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance. The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that “no other crime was committed by the person arrested.” If the intention of the law in the second paragraph were to refer only to homicide and murder, it should have expressly said so, as it did in the third paragraph. Verily, where the law does not distinguish, neither should [the courts]. 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. Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms. The Court is aware that this ruling effectively absolves the appellant of illegal possession of an M-14 rifle, an offense which normally carries a penalty heavier than that for direct assault. While the penalty for the first is prision mayor, for the second it is only prision correccional. Indeed, the accused may evade conviction for illegal possession of firearms by using such weapons in committing an even lighter offense, like alarm and scandal or slight physical injuries, both of which are punishable by arresto menor. This consequence, however, necessarily arises from the language of RA 8294, whose wisdom is not subject to the Court’s review. Any perception that the result reached here appears unwise should be addressed to Congress. Indeed, the Court has no discretion to give statutes a new meaning detached from the manifest intendment and language of the legislature. [The Court's] task is constitutionally confined only to applying the law and jurisprudence to the proven facts, and [this Court] have done so in this case. To keep things simple: No illegal possession of fire arm. Illegal possession of firearm will only be applied if there are no other crimes committed. He committed Direct Assault with Attempted Homicide, therefore, no Illegal Possession of Firearm. Also, No aggravating cause there wasn’t any homicide or murder.