Scribd
Upload
76 views2 pages

Legal Analysis: People v. Ringor

The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The amendatory law increasing the penalty for a murder committed with an unlicensed firearm could not be applied retroactively as it would increase the defendant's penalty in violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws. 2) The defendant could not be convicted of both murder and illegal possession of firearms, as the firearm was only considered an aggravating circumstance of the murder, not a separate offense. 3) The defendant failed to prove his claim of self-defense. 4) In the absence of any aggravating circumstances, the appropriate penalty for the murder was reclusion perpetua, not death.

Uploaded by

Bianca Paloma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
76 views2 pages

Legal Analysis: People v. Ringor

The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The amendatory law increasing the penalty for a murder committed with an unlicensed firearm could not be applied retroactively as it would increase the defendant's penalty in violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws. 2) The defendant could not be convicted of both murder and illegal possession of firearms, as the firearm was only considered an aggravating circumstance of the murder, not a separate offense. 3) The defendant failed to prove his claim of self-defense. 4) In the absence of any aggravating circumstances, the appropriate penalty for the murder was reclusion perpetua, not death.

Uploaded by

Bianca Paloma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1886 PEOPLE v RINGOR

April 01, 2003 GR No. 137782 J. Carpio


Morales
Article III, Section 22, Ex Post Facto Laws and Bianca Paloma
Bill of Attainder
Petitioners: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Respondents: ARTURO NICOLAS Y RINGOR

Doctrine: In the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances to a crime of murder as


described by A248 RPC, a lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua has to be imposed in
according to A63(2) RPC

Facts:
1. The accused (Ringor) on the night of June 23, 1994 was seen entering People’s
Restaurant. A witness Fely Batanes saw the accused approach a table where the
victim was sitting, pulled his hair, & poked a knife at the latter’s throat. After, leaving
the restaurant, the accused returned with a gun, entered the kitchen of the
restaurant, stealthily approached the victim from behind & shot him 6 times
successively. The defendant was later apprehended and caught in his possession was
an unlicensed weapon. Upon verification in Camp Crame, it was found out that Ringor
is not a licensed firearm holder & that the gun was not licensed. Ringor put up self-
defense but he failed to prove Florida’s unlawful aggression. He was found guilty of
murder qualified by treachery and was sentenced to death. He was found guilty of a
separate charge of possession of an unlicensed firearm with a sentence of 17 to 20
yrs.

Issue/s: Ruling:
1. WON the amendatory law RA 8294 (which took effect in 1997: crime 1. NO
occurred in 1994) is applicable
2. WON RTC erred in convicting appellant for simple illegal possession 2. YES
of firearms and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate sentence
of 17 to 20 years.
3. WON trial court erred in convicting accused of murder 3. NO
4. WON RTC erred in sentencing the accused to death for murder
which wasn’t proven & that the alleged murder committed by the 4. NO
appellant, the appropriate penalty for the offense is reclusion
perpetua due to to the absence of an aggravating circumstance.
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:
1. At the time of the commission of the crime the use of an unlicensed firearm was still
not an aggravating circumstance in murder to homicide. To apply it to Ringor would
increase his penalty from reclusion perpetua to death. Hence, RA 8294 cannot
retroact as it is unfavorable to the accused, lest it becomes an ex post facto law.
2. 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 PD 1866. It is simply considered as an aggravating circumstance, no
longer as a separate offence. According to the A22 of RPC, retroactivity of the law
must be applied if it is favourable to the accused. Thus, insofar as it spares accused-
appellant a separate conviction for illegal possession of firearms, RA 8294 has to be
given retroactive application
3. For self-defense to prosper, unlawful aggression, proportionality of methods to fend
said aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation from defender must be proven. In
this case, defendant failed to prove unlawful aggression. The statement that the
victim approached him with a bolo was inconsistent to the witness’ statement of the
victim being in a prone position in the table. This does not constitute the requisite
quantum of proof for unlawful aggression. With the first requirement missing, the last
two requisites have no basis.
4. In the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances to a crime of murder as
described by A248 RPC, a lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua has to be imposed in
according to A63(2) RPC

You might also like