Scribd
Upload
522 views2 pages

People Vs Castillo

Julian Castillo y Lumayro was charged with murder and illegal possession of firearms for killing his coworker. When police identified themselves while Castillo was boarding a vessel, he attempted to escape but was caught. Police found he possessed a handmade revolver and ammunition without a license. The issue was whether mere possession of a firearm is a crime. The court held that under recent amendments, unlicensed firearm possession in murder is now an aggravating circumstance, not a separate crime. Only one penalty can be imposed. As the prosecution did not prove Castillo lacked a license, he could not be convicted of illegal firearm possession. His conviction was modified to homicide with illegal firearm possession as an aggravating circumstance.

Uploaded by

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

People Vs Castillo

Julian Castillo y Lumayro was charged with murder and illegal possession of firearms for killing his coworker. When police identified themselves while Castillo was boarding a vessel, he attempted to escape but was caught. Police found he possessed a handmade revolver and ammunition without a license. The issue was whether mere possession of a firearm is a crime. The court held that under recent amendments, unlicensed firearm possession in murder is now an aggravating circumstance, not a separate crime. Only one penalty can be imposed. As the prosecution did not prove Castillo lacked a license, he could not be convicted of illegal firearm possession. His conviction was modified to homicide with illegal firearm possession as an aggravating circumstance.

Uploaded by

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

PEOPLE vs CASTILLO

FACTS:
JULIAN CASTILLO y LUMAYRO was charged with Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms in two (2)
separate Information

He killed his co-worker (construction employees of a gaisano mall)


Illegal possession of firearms

they saw the accused on board a vessel bound for Cebu. When they boarded the vessel, Akoy positively
identified the accused to the police as the assailant. The accused attempted to escape when the police
identified themselves but the police caught up with him. Upon inquiry, the accused denied complicity in
the killing of Abawag. The police found in his possession a .38 caliber handmade revolver, three (3)
empty shells and three (3) live ammunitions. Further inquiry revealed that the accused owned the gun but
had no license to possess it. The police then took the accused into custody and charged him for the
murder of Abawag and for illegal possession of firearm.

convicted of Homicide, as the prosecution failed to prove the alleged qualifying circumstances of evident
premeditation and treachery, and of Illegal Possession of Firearm, aggravated by homicide.

ISSUE:
WON the  accused has no license to carry the firearm---> NO.mere possession, by itself, is not an
offense.

HELD:

With the passage of Republic Act No. 8294 on June 6, 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder
or homicide is now considered, not as a separate crime, but merely a special aggravating circumstance.

R.A. 8294 also provided that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm,
such use shall be considered as a special aggravating circumstance.
This amendment has two (2) implications: first,the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of
homicide or murder shall not be treated as a separate offense, but merely as a special aggravating
circumstance; second, as only a single crime (homicide or murder with the aggravating circumstance of
illegal possession of firearm) is committed under the law, only one penalty shall be imposed on the
accused.

considering that the provisions of the amendatory law are favorable to herein appellant, the new law
should be retroactively applied in the case at bar. It was thus error for the trial court to convict the
appellant of two (2) separate offenses.

crime for which the appellant may be charged is homicide, aggravated by illegal possession of firearm,
the correct denomination for the crime, and not illegal possession of firearm, aggravated by homicide as
ruled by the trial court, as it is the former offense which aggravates the crime of homicide under the
amendatory law.

Two (2) requisites are necessary to establish illegal possession of firearms: first, the existence of the
subject firearm, and second, the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the gun did not have the
corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence. The onus probandi of establishing these
elements as alleged in the Information lies with the prosecution. The first element -- the existence of the
firearm -- was indubitably established by the prosecution.

no proof was adduced by the prosecution to establish the second element of the crime, i.e., that the
appellant was not licensed to possess the firearm. This negative fact constitutes an essential element of
the crime as mere possession, by itself, is not an offense. The lack of a license or permit should have
been proved either by the testimony or certification of a representative of the PNP Firearms and
Explosives Unit that the accused was not a licensee of the subject firearm[14] or that the type of firearm
involved can be lawfully possessed only by certain military personnel.[15] Indeed, if the means of proving
a negative fact is equally within the control of each party, the burden of proof is on the party averring said
negative fact. As the Information alleged that the appellant possessed an unlicensed gun, the prosecution
is duty-bound to prove this allegation. It is the prosecution who has the burden of establishing beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged, consistent with the basic principle that an
accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Thus, if the non-existence of some fact is a constituent
element of the crime, the onus is upon the State to prove this negative allegation of non-existence.

although the appellant himself admitted that he had no license for the gun recovered from his possession,
his admission will not relieve the prosecution of its duty to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
appellant's lack of license or permit to possess the gun.

Not being a judicial admission, said statement by accused-appellant does not prove beyond reasonable
doubt the second element of illegal possession of firearm. It does not even establish a prima facie case. It
merely bolsters the case for the prosecution but does not stand as proof of the fact of absence or lack of a
license.

Modified

You might also like