PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILLIAM MONTINOLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Montinola

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted William Montinola for two crimes arising from a single violent incident: robbery with homicide, and illegal possession of firearm. The accused shot and killed a passenger inside a jeepney after divesting him of his money, using an unlicensed pistol. The case matters because it fixes the legal treatment of an unlicensed firearm used in a killing committed on the occasion of a robbery, and because it illustrates the retroactive application of a penal law that is favorable to the accused.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City tried the two cases jointly. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to both charges. After the prosecution had presented three witnesses, he moved to withdraw his plea, and when rearraigned he pleaded guilty to both charges, although trial on the merits continued. The trial court rendered a Joint Judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for robbery with homicide and to death for illegal possession of firearm, and ordering him to pay damages.

The accused filed a Notice of Appeal stating that he was appealing to the Court of Appeals. The trial court instead directed the transmission of the records to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that it, and not the Court of Appeals, has appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher, and that a judgment imposing the death penalty is subject to automatic review. It nevertheless gave due course to the notice of appeal, and held that even without an appeal it would review the judgment, because where cases are consolidated and jointly tried and only one decision is rendered sentencing the accused to death in one case and to reclusion perpetua in the others, he is deemed to have appealed from the judgment in the latter cases.

Facts

At noon on 18 November 1996, the accused boarded a passenger jeepney bound for Libertad Plaza in Iloilo City. Among the passengers was Jose Eduardo Reteracion. Suddenly, the accused drew his gun, an unlicensed .380 caliber Llama pistol, and directed Reteracion to hand over his money or else he would be killed. He aimed the firearm at the victim's neck and fired successive shots, and the victim slumped dead.

Police Officer Garcia, who heard the shot, approached the jeepney and met the accused carrying a gun. He chased him as he ran away, his jacket bloodstained, throwing bundles of money. Garcia and bystanders picked up the money strewn along the way. Police Officer Hollero finally caught up with the accused, who was brought to the police station with his gun.

The firearm was determined by the police firearms unit to be unlicensed, and the accused had no permit to possess or carry it. The paraffin test on his hands yielded positive for gunpowder nitrate, indicating that he had recently fired a gun. The confiscated gun was shown to be the same gun used to shoot and kill the victim, by comparison of the slugs from the tested bullets with the slugs recovered from the victim's body. The victim's wife spent for the burial and wake, and failed to recover part of the money taken from her husband.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused may be prosecuted for and convicted of the separate crimes of robbery with homicide and illegal possession of firearm, in light of the amendment introduced by Republic Act Number 8294 to Presidential Decree Number 1866.
• Whether or not the use of an unlicensed firearm in the killing perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the robbery may be considered as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery with homicide.
• Whether or not the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Presidential Decree Number 1866, as it stood when the crime was committed, provided:

Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Firearms, Ammunition or Instruments Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. -- The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any firearm, part of a firearm, ammunition or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearms or ammunition. If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the penalty of death shall be imposed.

This was the law in force on the date of the crime, and under it the accused could be held guilty of two separate crimes and sentenced to death for the illegal possession of firearm.

The third paragraph of Section 1 of Presidential Decree Number 1866, as amended by Republic Act Number 8294, provides:

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.

This amendment took effect while the case was pending, and because it spares the accused a separate conviction for illegal possession of firearm, it is favorable to him and is given retroactive effect.

Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the members thereof. -- When more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. When any of the arms used in the commission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the maximum of the corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed firearms.

The Court noted that this special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm has been held applicable only to robbery in band, and was not appreciated in fixing the penalty for robbery with homicide.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there can be no separate conviction for illegal possession of firearm if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm; instead, such use shall be considered merely as an aggravating circumstance in the homicide or murder committed. Since the new law is advantageous to the accused in that it spares him from a separate conviction, it was given retroactive effect. The Court acquitted him of illegal possession of firearm and spared him the penalty of death. It distinguished the case relied upon by the Solicitor General, because there the unlicensed firearm recovered was not the one used in the homicide committed on the occasion of the robbery.

On the second issue, the Court held that even assuming aggravating circumstances in the killing may be counted in determining the penalty for robbery with homicide, the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm cannot be appreciated in this case. That law was not yet enacted when the crime was committed, and it cannot be given retroactive effect for being unfavorable to the accused. Robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, both indivisible penalties, and under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code the greater penalty is applied when the commission of the deed is attended by one aggravating circumstance. To apply the new law retroactively would increase the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death, and would acquire the character of an ex post facto law. There being no modifying circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court correctly did not credit the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, because the change of plea was made only after the presentation of some evidence for the prosecution. To be entitled to it, the accused must have voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. The third requisite was wanting.

The Court also modified the awards of damages, reducing the burial and wake expenses to the amount evidenced by receipts, reducing the award for the unrecovered money to the difference between the sum taken and that recovered, and reducing moral damages in accordance with current jurisprudence.

Doctrine

When homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the use of that firearm is not a separate offense but is considered merely as an aggravating circumstance in the homicide or murder. This rule, introduced by Republic Act Number 8294, is given retroactive effect when it is favorable to the accused, sparing him from a separate conviction for illegal possession of firearm.

However, the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm cannot be appreciated in robbery with homicide when the law creating it was not yet in force at the time of the crime, because to do so would increase the penalty and give the law the character of an ex post facto law. Where the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and no modifying circumstances attend the crime, the lesser penalty is imposed.

The mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty requires that the confession of guilt be made in open court prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution; a plea of guilty entered after the prosecution has presented evidence does not entitle the accused to the mitigating circumstance.

Disposition

The accused was acquitted of illegal possession of firearm and spared the penalty of death, while his conviction for robbery with homicide was affirmed with the penalty of reclusion perpetua and with the awards of damages reduced.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the use of an unlicensed firearm in a killing is an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense, and a law that would aggravate the penalty cannot be applied retroactively. Examiners use this case to test the retroactive application of penal laws and the treatment of an unlicensed firearm in robbery with homicide.