close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

The gun ban and jurisprudence by karlon rama. sun star cebu

Discussion in 'Band of Glockers' started by boni, Mar 16, 2010.

  1. boni

    boni ako ito bok!

    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    perlas ng silanganan
    mga sir share ko lng a good read. a new lesson for me also.

    Rama: The gun ban and jurisprudence

    By Karlon N. Rama

    HOW useless is the gun ban?

    Don’t ask me. My bias on the subject is, by now, public knowledge. Let’s ask the Supreme Court (SC), the final arbiter of all legal questions, and hope everybody is illuminated.

    In a ruling dated Aug. 13, 2008, the SC First Division junked the illegal possession of firearms case filed against a man arrested 10 years ago, during the gun ban the Comelec imposed relative to the national and local elections in May 1998.

    It reversed the conviction of one Igmidio Madrigal before the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals and cancelled his imprisonment which would have lasted between two years, 11 months and 10 days, minimum, to five years, four months and 20 days, maximum, plus a P15,000 fine.

    Madrigal was arrested on March 31, 1998 in San Pedro, Laguna. He was caught having a paltik .38 revolver with five rounds and an empty cartridge.

    The High Court, in the resolution penned by Justice Renato Corona and bearing the concurrence of Chief Justice Reynato Puno, said Madrigal could not be held liable, not for illegal possession of firearm anyway.

    This, the Supreme Court explained, is because a person can only be charged with violations of Republic Act (RA) 8294, which penalizes the illegal possession of a firearm, if no other crime has been committed.

    And since the Comelec gun ban is enforced via a resolution which has the function of a law, the violation of which is therefore a crime, anybody arrested and charged for violating the gun ban cannot be charged with illegal possession, even if he were caught with the biggest, baddest bazooka this side of the planet.

    The funny thing is, the resolution enforcing the gun ban offers a lower penalty--one year as minimum to three years as maximum--than RA 8294, which provides penalties of up to six years if the gun illegally possessed is low-powered and up to 12 years if the gun his high-powered.

    The gun ban, therefore, makes it easier, not harder, for criminals to carry a gun outside of their homes. If they get caught, they only serve three years. Does anybody realize how ridiculous this situation is?

    Without the ban the penalty imposed on a person convicted for possessing an unlicensed firearm is harsher than when there is one. The gun ban, therefore, encourages criminals into carrying their illegal firearms.

    But the effect among lawful firearm owners is different, however. Yes, a license holder caught violating the prohibition can’t also get convicted for violating RA 8249, but he can get into a lot of trouble administratively.

    An administrative proceeding targets the license and, if a conviction is handed down, the firearm license of the person concerned might get revoked. This makes the person’s ownership of his existing firearms illegal and that, to a license holder, is a fate worse than death. Well, not quite, but close enough.

    This is why no license holder would, in his right mind, chose to willfully violate the gun ban, even if no less than the Supreme Court has pointed out how worthless it actually is.

    This, in turn, leaves criminals with the opportunity to attack and attack with impunity.

    The Philippine National Police (PNP) has claimed to have arrested 892 people for gun ban violations nationwide from Jan. 10 to Feb. 15.

    In Cebu City, one has been convicted--Angie Arceda, who was arrested last Feb. 8 with a .38 paltik revolver, much like the one Madrigal was caught with.

    Judge Silvestre Maamo sentenced Arceda to two years at the Cebu City Jail.

    (knrama@gmail.com)

    Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on March 15, 2010.
     
  2. 9MX

    9MX Rei!

    Messages:
    5,952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2003
    Location:
    Shooting
    and our lawmakers didn't see this?? or deliberately ignored this detail?
     

  3. choi_tan2000

    choi_tan2000 BoG # 55555

    Messages:
    1,700
    Likes Received:
    5
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    pasig
  4. ahtsay

    ahtsay

    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    I don't think they even care...:dunno:
     
  5. PMMA97

    PMMA97 TagaBundok

    Messages:
    1,745
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    No one has contested the legality of the COMELEC gunban in court?
     
  6. akula

    akula BizDuc NM Millennium Member

    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 1999
    Location:
    Diri, Diha, Didto
    Can anyone still recall the Chavez petition regarding cancellation of PTCFOR / gun ban a few year back (2003)?

    Read the final decision by the SC. Based on what happened, it looks like it was merely another fund-raising scheme, having to re-apply for a more stringent requirements. However, SC made a premise that PTCFOR is not a right but a privilege that can be recalled by the state. :(

    It, however, didn't tackled on the right of the individual for self defense and self preservation, as it was not the subject of the petition.

    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/157036.htm


    A similar gun-ban was also implemented around 2000 during the time of DG Lacson; a few months before Edsa Dos.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2010
  7. PMMA97

    PMMA97 TagaBundok

    Messages:
    1,745
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Most would say that the Chavez case was very weak and it set a very bad precedent.

    But at least he challenged the Government while most just watched and waited.
     
  8. zorkd

    zorkd

    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    .ph
  9. saki1611

    saki1611 BOG's #1611

    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Location:
    Philippines
    IMHO, there's no conflict between the two laws. filing of the necessary charges can be based on the discretion of the investigator handling the case. the investigator should have filed a case of illegal possession to the offender who was caught during gun ban without pertaining documents/license to his firearms; and violation of the election code re: gun ban, for offender who has license to carry FA during gun ban.
     
  10. boni

    boni ako ito bok!

    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    perlas ng silanganan
    yup tama ka sir wala ngang conflict sa RA8294 at ang comelec gun ban. pero ang mag labag ng comelec gun ban eh hindi pwede maging liable sa illegal possession of firearm. 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.” the law does not distinguish na dapat sa homicide or murder na lng na crime ang tinutukoy. kaya applicable din sa comelec gun ban. ang pag violate ng comelec gun ban eh crime na. kaya minimum of 1 year to 3 years max lng pag meron comelec gun ban. kaya manna from heaven ang comelec gun ban sa mga criminals.
     
  11. saki1611

    saki1611 BOG's #1611

    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Location:
    Philippines
    you're right too bro. kaya kung ako ang investigator ang file ko na charge is just Illegal Possession of FA kung gusto ko perwisyuhin yung offender, not the two charges of Illegal Possession and Comelec Gun Ban, otherwise the court will decide based on the jurisprudence you have posted. depende pa rin talaga sa tactics ng investigator...