PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. NIÑO JOTIE Y BAUTISTA @ JAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DE GUIA-SALVADOR, R., J.:
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 81 (RTC), finding
accused-appellant Niño Jotie y Bautista, a.k.a. Jay (or “appellant”), guilty of illegal possession of firearm, or violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294.[1] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused NIÑO
JOTIE y BAUTISTA @ Jay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
violation of P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294 and is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period, ranging
from 6 years and 1 day to 8 years and to pay a fine of P30,000.00.SO ORDERED.”
THE ANTECEDENTS
In the Information filed with the RTC on 24 April 2006 by
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, appellant was charged
with illegal possession of a caliber .45 pistol and seven (7) live
ammunition, which were found in front of his feet below the passenger
seat of the Isuzu Esteem vehicle driven by one Christian Lim. The
accusatory portion of the Information reads:
“That on or about 1:20 in the morning of April 20, 2006 at
Quezon City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named [appellant] not being authorized by law [and] without any
necessary license from the government, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully, and knowingly have in [his] possession and under his custody
a caliber .45 COLT MKIV Pistol with Serial Number NO-7 OF 2746, and
seven live ammunitions.CONTRARY TO LAW.”[2]
Arraigned with the assistance of a counsel de parte, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.[3]
At the Pre-Trial Conference, appellant admitted that no
license to possess and to carry firearm has been issued to him by the
Firearms and Explosive Unit of the Philippine National Police.[4]
During trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses: (1) PO2 Gail Gines (PO2 GINES), one of the police officers assigned at the Philippine National Police-Traffic Magement Group (PNP-TMG),
Task Force Limbas, Camp Crame, Quezon City, who recovered the subject
firearm, a .45 caliber pistol, at the front passenger seat that was
occupied by appellant, and a .22 caliber pistol at the driver’s side
where one Christian Lim was seated; and (2) PO2 Julito Mamanao (PO2 MAMANAO),
one of the police officers of the PNP-TMG who was present when they
chased and flagged down the vehicle of appellant and Lim, and arrested
them after finding said firearms inside the vehicle.
Further, the prosecution and the defense stipulated upon the
testimonies of PO2 Fernando Rey Gapuz and PO2 Josil Rey Lucena to the
effect, that they were part of the team that arrested appellant on
April 20, 2006 at 1:20 a.m.; that they were able to identify the person
of appellant as well as his signature in the Joint Affidavit of
Apprehension; that SPO3 Romualdo Escobar was subpoenaed to produce a
certification as requested by the PNP-TMG; and that appellant has no
license nor is he a registered holder of a caliber .45 pistol with
Serial No. NO-7 of 2746.
With the conclusion of the presentation of its evidence, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Evidence,[5]
which the trial court admitted over the objection of the defense.
Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense opted to file a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer of Evidence,[6] which the trial court granted.[7]
In his Demurrer To Evidence,[8] appellant pointed out that the prosecution’s offer of the direct testimony of PO2 GINES to prove, among other matters, that “he is one of the officers who apprehended [appellant] who was driving the vehicle”
contradicts the testimony itself of PO2 GINES and that of PO2 MAMANAO,
who both asserted that appellant was a front passenger of the vehicle,
while Christian Lim was the driver thereof.[9] Appellant also insinuated that the subject firearm was “planted” by the arresting officers because it was found merely resting at appellant’s foot but not in his actual possession.[10]
In its Order dated 02 February 2009, the trial court denied
appellant’s Demurrer to Evidence, and directed him to present his
evidence.[11] With appellant
having waived his right to present evidence, the trial court directed
the parties to submit their respective memorandum.[12]
In his Memorandum,[13]
appellant reiterated the same arguments he had stated in his Demurrer
To Evidence, i.e., that he should be acquitted on account of the
contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses PO2 GINES and PO2
MAMANAO, as to where appellant was seated inside the vehicle, whether at
the driver’s seat or the passenger seat; and the fact that the subject
firearm was not recovered from appellant’s possession but was just
“planted” by the arresting officers.[14]
The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
The Solicitor General’s summarized the evidence for the prosecution in the Appellee’s Brief as follows:
“At around 1:20 a.m. of April 20, 2006, the officer-in-charge
(OIC) of the Task Force Limbas received a report that suspected
carnappers riding a Suzuki Esteem with plate no. WAV 950 were seen along
White Plains, Quezon City. Pursuant thereto, three mobile vehicles
were dispatched to verify the report. One of the mobile vehicles,
mobile [no.] 86, manned by [PO2 GINES], PO2 Fernado Rey Gapuz, and PO1
Josil Rey Lucena, who were then plying along Santolan Road, Quezon City
responded. At that time the reported vehicle was also plying the same
road.The police officers spotted the vehicle bearing plate no. WAV
950 along Santolan Road or the side of White Plains Subdivision which
prompted them to follow the vehicle and signal the driver to pull over
to the side of the street. Instead of yielding, the driver attempted to
flee which forced the mobile patrol to give chase. Another mobile
patrol, manned by the OIC of Task Force Limbas, Police Senior Inspector
Hansel Tan, and PO2 Julito Mamanao.. were also there and gave chase.
The police officers were able to corner the vehicle in front of Gate 2,
Camp Crame.As part of the standard police operating procedure, the police
officers approached the vehicle, asked the occupants of the vehicle to
raise their hands and produce identification cards. The driver was
Christian Lim while the passenger was [appellant]. It was at that
instant when PO2 Mamanao clearly saw the Colt MKIV caliber .45 with
magazine and ammunition in front of the feet of [appellant.] A caliber
.22 with silencer and ammunition was also seen in front of the driver
Christian Lim.During the presentation of prosecution’s evidence in this case
a Memorandum dated April 20, 2006 issued by [FED-PNP] was produced that
stated that accused-appellant is not a licensed gun holder and that the
Colt MKIV embossed with “NBJ” on the left side and bearing Serial No.
NO-7 OF 2746 was [also not] licensed…”[15]
Version of the Defense
Appellant expressly waived his right to present evidence.[16]
RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT
In convicting appellant of illegal possession of a firearm,
the trial court gave credence to the testimony of PO2 GINES and the
stipulated testimonies of PO2 Fernando Rey Gapus and PO1 Jusil Rey
Lucena, and relied on Exhibit “H” or the Memorandum issued by
Alexander L. Roldan, Chief of the Records Division of the Firearms and
Explosive Division-Philippine National Police (FED-PNP),
stating that appellant is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of
any kind and caliber per verification from the records of the FED-PNP.
In his motion for reconsideration[17], appellant reiterated the same arguments[18]
raised in his Demurrer To Evidence and Memorandum. He further argued
that since the firearm was merely found at his foot, he was not in
possession thereof,[19] and
that with the failure of the prosecution to produce the firearm before
the court, the existence thereof was not established.[20]
With the denial[21] of his motion for reconsideration, appellant filed a notice of appeal on 11 January 2013.[22]
The Issue
Appellant urges the reversal of his conviction on the ground
that the prosecution had not proven his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
for its failure to present as evidence the subject firearm.[23]
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is devoid of merit.
The crime of illegal possession of firearms is defined and penalized under Section 1 of PD 1866, as amended by RA No. 8294, to wit :
“Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
Disposition or Possession of Firearms, Ammunition or Instruments Used
or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition.-
The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a
fine of not less than Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in,
acquire, dispose or possess any low powered firearm, such as rimfire
handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of
firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended
to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition: Provided,
That no other crime was committed.The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period
and a fine of Thity Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) shall be imposed if the
firearm is classified as high powered firearm which includes those with
bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimiter such as
caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but
considered powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire
magnum and other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and
by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no other crime was
committed by the person arrested.”
To sustain a conviction for illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition, the presence of two elements must be established, viz: (a)
the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition; and (b) the fact
that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm and ammunition does
not have the corresponding license or permit to possess them.[24] In the case at bar, both elements were established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
First Element: Existence of the firearm
There is no merit in appellant’s argument that the existence
of the subject caliber. 45 pistol was not shown because the prosecution
failed to present it as evidence.
Records show that the subject firearm was brought[25] before the court by PO2 MAMANAO[26]
when he was presented as a witness. However, the trial court barred
the prosecution from marking it in evidence for the unjustified failure
of the latter to have it marked during the pre-trial conference.[27] Hence, it was not among the evidence formally offered by the prosecution.[28]
Nevertheless, the presentation in evidence of said firearm is not a requirement to establish its existence.[29] Even without the presentation of the said firearm, its existence can be proved by the testimony of an eyewitness.[30] In People v. Narvasa,[31]
the high powered firearms were not presented as evidence, and the trial
court solely relied on the credible testimony of the prosecution
witnesses in appreciating the special aggravating circumstance of using
unlicensed firearms. In affirming the trial court’s ruling, the Supreme
Court held that illegal possession of firearms may be proven by
testimony even without the presentation of the said firearm. Thus:
“In People v. Lualhati,[32]
this Court merely stated that the existence of the firearm must be
established; it did not rule that the firearm itself had to be presented
as evidence. Thus, in People v. Orehuela,[33] the Court held that the existence of the firearm can be established by testimony, even without the presentation of the said firearm.
In the said case, Appellant Orehuela was convicted of qualified
illegal possession of a firearm despite the fact that the firearm used
was not presented as evidence. The existence of the weapon was deemed
amply established by the testimony of an eyewitness that Orehuela was in
possession of it and had used it to kill the victim…”[34]
In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to clearly
establish through the credible testimony of PO2 GINES not just the
existence of the subject caliber .45 pistol but also appellant’s
possession thereof. We quote the relevant portions of PO2 Gines’
testimony, thus:
ordered them to raise their hands and asked for identification and they
gave us their license, sir.
(Witness [pointed to the appellant]
It bears emphasis that no ill-motive was shown by the appellant
for PO2 GINES to falsely implicate him in the present case. It has been
held that where there is no showing that the prosecution witnesses were
actuated by any improper motive, their testimony is entitled to full
faith and credit.[36] Furthermore, appellant failed to overturn the legal presumption[37] of regularity in the performance of official duties in favor of PO2 GINES when the latter effected appellant’s arrest.
In seeking his acquittal of the crime charged, appellant interposed the defense of “planted”
evidence or frame-up. Easily concocted but difficult to prove, such
defense is viewed by the court with disfavor unless supported by clear
and convincing evidence.[38]
In this case, appellant, expressly waived his right to present evidence
to support his defense, despite ample opportunity given him to do so
after his Demurrer to Evidence was denied by the trial court. Being
solely anchored on appellant’s self-serving and uncorroborated
allegation, such defense is unworthy of credence.
That appellant did not file a single administrative or
criminal complaint against the police officers who had allegedly planted
evidence against him, lends credence to the conclusion that such claim
was a mere defense ploy. Such inaction of appellant runs counter to the
normal human conduct and behavior of one who feels truly aggrieved by
the acts complained of.[39]
Appellant’s contention that the testimony of PO2 GINES (as to where
he was seated inside the Isuzu Esteem car) contradicts that of PO2
MAMANAO[40] holds no water because the latter’s testimony had been ordered stricken off[41]
the record for his failure to appear for cross-examination. Thus, the
trial court correctly found PO2 GINES’ testimony to the effect that
appellant was the “passenger”[42] occupying the “front passenger seat”[43] of the Isuzu vehicle flagged-down by the police officers on April 20, 2006 to be credible and consistent.[44]
On the alleged inconsistency between PO2 GINES’ direct
testimony and the prosecution’s offer thereof, the records show that the
appellant failed to raise a timely objection thereto as required under
Section 36, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which provides:
“SEC. 36. Objection. – Objection to evidence offerred orally must be made immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral
examination of a witness shall be made as the grounds therefor shall
become reasonably apparent.An offer of evidence in writing shall be formally objected to
within three (3) days after notice of the offer unless a different
period is allowed by the court.In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified.”
Consequently, he is deemed to have waived such objection. It was too late for him to raise his objection via his
Demurrer to Evidence that he filed long after such testimony had been
formally offered in evidence and admitted by the trial court, and after
the prosecution had rested its case.
|
Second Element:
|
Appellant’s possession of the
|
|
caliber .45 pistol sans license/authority
|
Appellant’s claim that he was not in possession of the subject firearm as it was merely found near his feet[45] deserves short shrift.
Possession includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive possession.[46]
Actual possession exists when the illicit article is in the immediate
physical possession or control of the accused while constructive
possession exists when it is under the dominion and control of the
accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over
the place where it is found.[47]
Conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a
showing of non-exclusive possession would not result in exoneration.[48]
In the case at bar, the caliber .45 pistol was found a mere five (5) or six (6) inches[49]
away from the feet of appellant on the floor below the front passenger
seat he was occupying. Clearly, the area where the subject firearm was
spotted was within the control and dominion of appellant. The mere fact
that another person (Christian Lim) was in the car with appellant will
not result in the latter’s acquittal. Appellant cannot avoid conviction
if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the
contraband is located, is shared with another.[50] Moreover, appellant failed to overcome with satisfactory explanation his presumed[51] knowledge of the presence of the same caliber .45 near his feet.
Anent the lack of authority to possess a firearm, a certification from
FED-PNP, without presentation of the signatory or issuer thereof,
suffices to establish that the accused is not licensed to possess a
firearm. OCA Circular No. 11-2011[52]
mandates lower courts to accept a FED-PNP certification as proof, on
its own, that a person has no license to possess firearms, thus:
“WHEREFORE, OCA Circular No. 1-98 dated 2 January 1998 is hereby superseded. All lower courts are hereby directed
to desist from issuing subpoenas, summonses or other processes
requiring the personal appearance of the Chief, Records Section,
Firearms and Explosives [Division] and shall admit the certification issued by the FE[D], Records Section as sufficient proof of the fact of possession or non-possession of a valid license to own or possess firearms or explosives in the offense of Illegal Possession of Firearms without further need of requiring the appearance of the FE[D] records personnel to testify on the authenticity thereof.This Circular shall take effect immediately.”[53]
Furthermore, the prosecution was able to establish appellant’s
lack of license to possess the subject firearm by presenting Exhibit “H”[54] or the Memorandum issued by Alexander L. Roldan, Chief of the Records Division of FED-PNP, stating that appellant is “not [a] licensed/registered firearm [holder] of any kind and caliber per verification from the records [of the FED-PNP].” When formally offered in evidence, Exhibit “H” was admitted[55] by the trial court without any objection from the defense[56]. Besides, no less than appellant himself admitted during the pre-trial that he has no authority to possess the subject firearm.[57]
All said, the prosecution has established beyond moral
certainty appellant’s unlawful possession of the subject caliber .45
pistol and seven (7) live ammunitions.
THE PENALTY
PD 1866 punishes any person “who shall unlawfully … possess any firearm, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition. ….” PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294,[58] considers a criminal act not only illegal possession of firearms but also illegal possession of ammunition. In People v. Crespo,[59]
the appellant was found guilty of illegal possession of four live
ammunition for a .22 caliber revolver. In the present case, appellant
was charged under one information only, but the prosecution has
established beyond reasonable doubt appellant’s guilt for illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition, viz: a caliber .45 pistol and seven (7) live ammunition.
The mere fact that the information charged duplicitous offenses[60]
is not a bar to appellant’s conviction for the other crime charged in
the same information. Appellant’s failure to raise the issue of the
duplicitous information before he was arraigned constitutes a waiver of
such objection, and he could be convicted of as many offenses as
charged in the information.[61] Thus, he is criminally liable for two counts of violation of PD 1866, as amended, viz: (i) one count of illegal possession of firearm, and (ii) one count of illegal possesion of ammunition.
Be that as it may, Republic Act No. 10591 (RA 10591) or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act[62]
may be given retroactive effect insofar as it favors the appellant. The
plain precept contained in Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code,
declares the retroactivity of penal laws in so far as they are favorable
to persons accused of a felony, irrespective of whether or not the
accused has applied for it.[63]
Hence, while appellant is guilty of two (2) counts of violation of PD
1866, as amended, he may not be held criminally liable for possession of
ammunition because under RA 10591, the illegal possession of ammunition
for caliber .45 is already absorbed in the crime for illegal possession
of the caliber .45 firearm pursuant to Section 28 (x) thereof, thus:
“g) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully … possess ammunition for a small arm … If the violation of this paragraph is committed by the same person charged with the …. possession of a small arm, the former violation shall be absorbed by the latter;”[64]
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant is sentenced
to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years, eight (8) months and one
(1) day,[65] as minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision mayor,[66]
as maximum. Meanwhile, the fine imposed by the trial court on appellant
should be deleted as it is no longer imposed as a penalty for illegal
possession of firearm and/or ammunition under RA 10591.[67]
Finally, the caliber .45 pistol, and the seven (7) live ammunitions
seized from appellant are forefeited in favor of the government.[68]
WHEREFORE, with the following MODIFICATIONS:
Niño Jotie y Bautista @ Jay to an indeterminate penalty of 6 years, 8
months and 1 day, as minimum, to 9 years and 4 months of prision mayor, as maximum;
subject firearm, a caliber .45 Colt MKIV Pistol with Serial No. NO-7 OF
2746, and the seven (7) live ammunition in favor of the Government,
the appealed Decision dated 26 April 2012 is AFFIRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.
Garcia and Bueser, JJ., concur.
[1] An Act Amending the
Provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, Entitled
“Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing
In, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or
Instruments Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or
Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations
thereof, and for Relevant Purposes”
[2] Records, pp. 1-2.
[3] Records, p. 51.
[4] Ibid, p. 71.
[5] Id., pp. 198-199.
[6] Id., pp. 211-214.
[7] Id., p. 218.
[8] Id., pp. 221-230.
[9] Id., p. 227.
[10] Id., p. 227.
[11] Id., p. 239.
[12] Id., p. 355.
[13] Id., pp. 356-364.
[14] Id., pp. 362 -364.
[15] Rollo, pp. 66-67. Serial No. 2746 is the serial number of a Colt caliber .45 licensed to Reynaldo Galang Cabigting.
[16] Records, p. 355.
[17] Ibid., pp. 381-393.
[18] Id., pp. 383-385.
[19] Id., p. 387.
[20] Id., p. 393.
[21] Id., p. 400.
[22] Id., p. 403.
[23] Rollo, p. 34.
[24] Evangelista vs. People, G.R. No. 163267, May 5, 2010. Fajardo vs. People, G.R. No. 190889, January 10, 2011
[25] TSN, 13 June 2007, pp. 13-14.
[26] Per Order dated
30 January 2008, the direct testimony of PO2 Mamanao was expunged from
the records for his unjustified failure to appear for the scheduled
cross-examination. Records, p. 182.
[27] TSN, 13 June 2007, pp. 13-14.
[28] Formal Offer of Evidence, Records, pp. 198-199.
[29] People vs. Lualhati, 234 SCRA 325, 332, 21 July 1994.
[30] People vs. Orehuela, 232 SCRA 82, 29 April 1994.
[31] G.R. No. 128618, 16 November 1998.
[32] Supra.
[33] Supra.
[34] Emphasis supplied
[35] TSN, 15 November 2006, pp. 04-07. Emphasis supplied
[36] People vs. Pinandong, 268 SCRA 555.
[37] Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court.
[38] People vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 187047, 15 June 2011.
[39] People vs. Ahmad, G.R. No. 148048, January 15, 2004; People vs. Sy, G.R. No. 147348, September 24, 2002.
[40] Rollo, p. 33.
[41] Records, p. 182.
[42] TSN, 15 November 2006, pp. 04.
[43] TSN, 15 November 2006, pp. 06-07.
[44] Affidavit (Exhibit “B”), paragraph 5, Records, p. 16.
[45] Records, p. 387.
[46] Fajardo vs. People, G.R. No. 190889 , 10 January 2011; Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95523, 18 August 1997.
[47] People vs. Batoon, G.R. No. 184599, 24 November 2010, quoting People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004, 439 SCRA 350.
[48] People vs. Macabare, G.R. No. 179941, August 24, 2009.
[49] Rollo, p. 34.
[50] Del Castillo vs. People, G.R. No. 185128, January 30, 2012, citing People vs. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, 28 May 2004.
[51] Knowledge of an
accused of the existence and character of the illicit article in the
place where he exercises dominion and control is presumed in the absence
of any satisfactory explanation. Quelnan vs. People, G.R. No. 166061, 06 July 2007; and People v. Tira, supra.
[52] Issued by the Office of Court Administrator on 18 January 2011.
[53] Emphasis added.
[54] Records, p. 24.
[55] Ibid, p. 207.
[56] Id, p. 206.
[57] Id, p. 71.
[58] RA 8264 categorized firearms into low powered and high powered firearms (low powered firearm are those with similar firepower as a rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 while high powered firearm
includes those with bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9
millimeter, such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered
firearms but considered powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22
center-fire magnum and other firearms with firing capability of full
automatic and by burst of two or three) , and imposing a higher penalty
therefor.
[59] G.R. No. 121003, April 20, 1998.
[60] Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court proscribes more than one offense in each Information:
Duplicity of offense. – A complaint or information must charge
but one offense, except only in those cases in which existing laws
prescribe a single punishment for various offenses.
[61] The purpose of the
rule against duplicity of offense is to give the accused the necessary
knowledge of the charge so that he may not be confused in his defense.
(F. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Volume II, 8th ed., citing People v. Ferrer, 101 Phil. 234 (1957), cited in Fajardo v. People, supra.
[62] Approved on 29 May 2013
[63] People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 555, cited in People v. Feloteo, G.R. No. 124212, 05 June 1998 .
[64] Emphasis supplied
[65] The penalty one degree lower to “prision mayor in its medium period” is 6 years and 1 day to 8 years.
[66] See Section 64(1) of the Revised Penal Code. “Medium period” of “prision mayor in its medium period” is 8 years 8 months and 1 day to 9 years and 4 months.
[67] The penalty of fine was abrogated by RA 10591. Pertinent provision provides:
“SEC. 45. Repealing Clause. – This Act repeals Sections 1, 2, 5
and 7 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, and Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 8294 and all other laws, executive orders, letters of
instruction, issuances, circulars, administrative orders, rules or
regulations that are inconsistent herewith.”
[68] SEC. 37.
Confiscation and Forfeiture. – The imposition of penalty for any
violation of this Act shall carry with it the accessory penalty of
confiscation and forfeiture of the firearm, ammunition, or parts
thereof, machinery, tool or instrument in favor of the government which
shall be disposed of in accordance with law.