Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PD 1866 PDF
PD 1866 PDF
Notes
Temporary, incidental, casual, harmless, or
transient possession or control of any or
part of the device mentioned for the sole
purpose of surrendering it to the proper
authorities shall not be a violation of this
Section.
Any member of law enforcement agencies or any other government official and employee who, after due
notice, fails or refuses, intentionally or negligently, to appear as a witness for the prosecution of the
defense in any proceeding, involving violations of this Decree, without any valid reason.
BOBILA, COURTNEY B. - P.D. NO. 1866
Prisioncorreccional | Fine of not less than P10,000.00 but not more P50,000.00 |
Perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if despite due notice to them and to the witness
concerned, the former does not exert reasonable effort to present the latter to the court.
The immediate superior of the member of the law enforcement agency or any other government employee
mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
X
Notes
No person shall be transferred or reassigned
No person mentioned above shall be transferred or reassigned to any other government office
located in another territorial jurisdiction during the pendency of the case in court.
Exception: Compelling reason. Provided that the immediate superior shall notify the court where
the case is pending of the order to transfer or reassign, within twenty-four (24) hours from its
approval and the immediate superior shall be penalized should he/she fail to notify the court of
such order to transfer or reassign. (Sec. 4)
I
Jeopardy
application thereof is more favorable to the accused, the conviction or
acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case for violation of this
Decree shall be a bar to another prosecution of the same accused for
any offense where the violation of this Decree was a necessary means
for committing the offense or in furtherance of which, incident to which,
in connection with which, by reason of which, or on occasion of which,
the violation of this Decree was committed, and vice versa.”
(Sec. 4-B)
Purpose: To ensure speedy trial.
Yes, failure to comply with the provision of Section 4-C, 4-D and 4-E shall be sufficient
cause for the cancellation of the license and the confiscation of all such chemicals or
accessories, whether or not lawfully imported, purchased or possessed by the subject
person or entity.
SPL
II
PD No. 10591
July 23, 2012
Class-B Light weapons refer to weapons designed for use by two (2) or more persons serving as a crew, or rifles and
machine guns exceeding caliber 7.62MM such as heavy machine guns, handheld underbarrel and mounted grenade
launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of anti-tank missile
and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a caliber of less than 100MM.
Class-A Light weapons refer to self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, submachine guns, assault rifles
and light machine guns not exceeding caliber 7.62MM which have fully automatic mode.
Likewise, a fine of Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person
holding a valid firearm license who changes residence or office address other than that
indicated in the license card and fails within a period of thirty (30) days from said transfer to
notify the FEO of the PNP of such change of address.
if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty
which is lower than that prescribed in the preceding setion (Section 28), the penalty for illegal
possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged.
if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty
which is equal to that imposed under Section 28 for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under
the RPC or other special laws of which he/she is found guilt
If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime
of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat.
If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation of this
Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense.
An imitation firearm used in the commission of a crime shall be considered a real firearm as
defined in this Act and the person who committed the crime shall be punished in accordance
with R.A. No. 10591
Exception
Injuries caused on the occasion of the conduct of competitions, sports, games, or any
recreation activities involving imitation firearms shall not be punishable under this Act.
Requisites for Issuance of and Obtaining a License to Own and Possess Firearms.
Requisites:
1. Filipino citizen,
2. at least twenty-one (21) years old
3. Has gainful work, occupation or business or has filed an Income Tax Return (ITR) for the
preceding year as proof of income, profession, business or occupation.
4. Pay reasonable licensing fees
5. An applicant who intends to possess a firearm owned by a juridical entity shall submit
his/her duty detail order to the Firearms And Explosives Office of the PNP.
Requisites for Issuance of and Obtaining a License to Own and Possess Firearms.
In addition, the applicant shall submit the following certification issued by appropriate authorities attesting the following:
1. he applicant has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude:
2. The applicant has passed the psychiatric test administered by a PNP-accredited psychologist or psychiatrist;
3. The applicant has passed the drug test conducted by an accredited and authorized drug testing laboratory or clinic;
4. The applicant has passed a gun safety seminar which is administered by the PNP or a registered and authorized gun
club;
5. The applicant has filed in writing the application to possess a registered firearm which shall state the personal
circumstances of the applicant;
6. The applicant must present a police clearance from the city or municipality police office; and
7. The applicant has not been convicted or is currently an accused in a pending criminal case before any court of law for a
crime that is punishable with a penalty of more than two (2) years.
An acquittal or permanent dismissal of a criminal case before the courts of law shall qualify the accused
thereof to qualify and acquire a license. (Sec. 4)
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove that his/her life is under actual threat by
submitting a threat assessment certificate from the PNP. (Sec. 7)
X
Yes, The Chief of the PNP or his/her authorized representative may revoke,
cancel or suspend a license or permit on the ground provided under section 39.
X
Accused mercilessly put bullets into the head of his adversary, Mayolito Cabatu, and
thereafter shot the mother of the latter on her left buttock. He did this only because
Mayolito called him "barako“. He claimed that it was self-defense because such statement
is a provoking statement, teasing him and titillate him into a "fight"
He was charged with murder for the fatal shooting of Mayolito Cabatu (Crim. Case No. 23-
498), frustrated murder for the injury sustained by Florencia Cabatu (Crim. Case No. 23-
494), and violation of par. 2, Sec. 1, PD 1866, or qualified illegal possession of firearm, i.e.,
use of an unlicensed firearm in committing murder or homicide (Crim. Case No. 23-499).
X
ISSUE:
Whether the conviction of the accused where he was charged with illegal possession of a
firearm used in perpetrating the homicide and attempted homicide as a violation of par. 2,
Sec. 1, PD 1866 proper.
X
No, it was not proper because violations of PD No. 1866 was decriminalization by R.A. No. 8294. It
has been expressly stated in R.A. No. 8294 that, “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.”
No distinctions between murder and homicide. The formulation in RA 8294, "[i]f 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," signifies a legislative intent to treat as a single
offense the illegal possession of firearms and the commission of murder or homicide with the use
of an unlicensed firearm.
X
Accused-appellant Guillermo Nepomuceno, Jr., (hereafter NEPOMUCENO) was charged before the RTC
with parricide in Criminal Case No. 94-136491 and with qualified illegal possession of firearm in Criminal
Case No. 94-139839. The crime of parricide was alleged to have been committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm. He was convicted first of parricide. Then the RTC proceeded to the second case,
qualified illegal possession of firearm.
RTC: Convicted Nepumuceno stating that the elements of the crime of aggravated illegal possession of
firearm were present, to wit:
(1)there must be a firearm;
(2)the gun was possessed by the accused;
(3)the accused had no license from the government; and
(4)homicide or murder was committed by the accused with the use of said firearm.
X
Whether Nepumuceno should be convicted with the the crime of aggravated illegal
possession of firearm.
X
No, R.A.. No. 8294 Section 1 thereof radically amended Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 by, among other things, revising
the second paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 from the following:
“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.”
Pursuant to the amendment, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of murder or homicide is treated
as an aggravating circumstance. Therefore, the illegal possession or use of the unlicensed firearm is no longer
separately punished.
Being clearly favorable to NEPOMUCENO, who is not a habitual criminal, the amendment to the second paragraph
of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 by R.A.. No. 8294 should be given retroactive effect in this case.
(the crime of illegal possession of firearm was committed on 2 May 1994, i.e., before the approval of R.A.. No. 8294
on 6 June 1997.)
X
Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm. It appears from
the records that, accused-appellant arrived at the basketball court located on Dapo Street, Pandacan,
Manila, and, for no apparent reason, suddenly fired a gun in the air. He then went to a nearby alley and,
minutes later, proceeded to the closed store about four (4) meters away from the basketball court. There,
he initiated an argument with the group of Boy Manalaysay, Jimmy Tolentino and MacarioAfable, Jr.
Afable tried to pacify accused-appellant, whereupon, the latter placed his left arm around Afable's neck
and shot him pointblank on the abdomen. Afable ran toward the alley and accused-appellant ran after him.
Another shot rang out, so one of the bystanders, Carlos Taganas, went to the alley and there, he saw
accused-appellant and Afable grappling for possession of the gun. The Chief Barangay Tanod arrived and
was able to wrest the gun away from accused-appellant, who immediately fled from the scene of the
incident. Afable was rushed to the Philippine General Hospital, where he eventually expired.
X
RTC – Convicted him. Records and the evidence show that the elements of the offense of
qualified illegal possession of firearms was present: 1. there must be a firearm; 2. the gun was
possessed by the accused; 3. the accused had no license from the government; and 4. homicide
or murder was committed by the accused with the use of said firearm
ISSUE:
Accused-appellant cannot be convicted of homicide or murder with "the use of the unlicensed firearm as
aggravating," inasmuch as said felonies are not charged in the information but merely mentioned as the
result of the use of the unlicensed firearm. Accused-appellant was not arraigned for homicide or murder.
Hence, he cannot be convicted of any of these crimes without violating his right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, not to mention his right to due process.