I.

BP 22 – BOUNCING CHECK LAW

Bouncing Check
One issues a check for valuable consideration but when presented for payment on its due date, the check is
dishonored for insufficiency of funds or because the account is closed.

Elements
1. Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value
2. At the time the drawer issued the check, he has knowledge that he has no sufficient fund or credit with
the drawee bank for the payment
3. at the time the check was presented for payment, it is dishonored for insufficient of fund or because the
account is closed
Insufficient of fund
- if the amount of the check is bigger than the balance of fund which is used to pay the check
- insufficient of fund to pay the amount stated in the check
Account is closed
- if one opens a check account, he is now a current holder account. On a current day, one must
maintain a sufficient fund in order to consider such account valid or active. If one cannot put up the
minimum maintaining balance despite notice to him, then the bank will consider such account as
closed
- or one uses the remaining check in the booklet even if the deposit is exhausted

4. Despite written notice of dishonor to the drawer or maker, he failed to make good the check within 5
banking days from receipt of notice of dishonor

Distinguish BP 22 from Estafa (Art 315 (RTC))

BP 22
DECIET and Damage are not
required. MERE ISSUANCE of a
check is material
Against public interest since the
purpose is to prevent proliferation of
the worthless checks
MALUM PROHIBITUM – the only
inquiry is whether or not the law is
violated
Applies to pre-existing obligations
ESTAFA
DECIET and Damage are essential
elements. MERE ISSUANCE of a
check is not sufficient
An offense against public property
MALA IN SE – criminal intent is
necessary
Applies to simultaneous obligations

Prima Facie Evidence

Making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient
funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check

Penalties
Imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not
more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or
both

Valid Defenses
- The subject was NOT made drawn and issued by petitioner in EXCHANGE FOR VALUEE as received
as to qualify it as a check on account or for value.
- There is NO sufficient basis to conclude that petitioner at the time of issue of the check had actual
knowledge of the sufficiency of funds.
- There was NO notice of dishonor or said check actually served on petitioner
- The amount appearing in the check is FULLY PAID within five banking days from notice of dishonor
- Complainant knew at the time the accused issued the checks that the latter did not have sufficient funds
in the bank to cover the same
- The check must be PRESENTED for payment within the 90 days period. If presented beyond the period
and the drawer’s fund are insufficient to cover it, there is no BP 22 violation.
-
Cases:
 Lozano vs Martinez, 18 December 1986
The constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22 for short), popularly known as the Bouncing
Check Law, which was approved on April 3, 1979, is the sole issue presented by these petitions for decision.
The question is definitely one of first impression in our jurisdiction.
These petitions arose from cases involving prosecution of offenses under the statute. The defendants in
those cases moved seasonably to quash the informations on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute
an offense, the statute being unconstitutional. The motions were denied by the respondent trial courts, except in
one case, which is the subject of G. R. No. 75789, wherein the trial court declared the law unconstitutional and
dismissed the case. The parties adversely affected have come for relief.

Ruling:
BP 22 is aimed at putting a stop to or curbing the practice of issuing checks that are worthless, i.e. checks
that end up being rejected or dishonored for payment.
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a
check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the
law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to
prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because
of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act
not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.

Eduardo R. Vaca vs. CA, G.R. No. 131714, November 16, 1998
Petitioner Eduardo R. Vaca is the president and owner of Ervine International, Inc. (Ervine), which is
engaged in the manufacture and sale of refrigeration equipment, while his son-in-law, petitioner Fernando
Nieto, is the firm's purchasing manager. On March 10, 1988, petitioners issued a check for P10,000.00 to the
General Agency for Reconnaissance, Detection, and Security, Inc. (GARDS) in partial payment of the security
services rendered by GARDS to Ervine. The check was drawn on the China Banking Corporation (CBC). When
deposited in the Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIBank) branch at Shaw Boulevard,
Mandaluyong, the check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds.

On April 13, 1988, petitioners issued a check for P19,860.16 to GARDS. The check was drawn on the
Associated Bank. The voucher accompanying it stated that the check was to replace the dishonored check, the
P9,860.16 balance being partial payment for Ervine's outstanding account. The check and the voucher were
received by a GARDS messenger, Nolan C. Pena, on April 15, 1988, but GARDS did not return the dishonored
check.

Ruling:
B.P. Blg. 22, provides a penalty of "imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year
or by a fine of not less than, but not more than double, the amount of the check which fine shall in no case
esceed two hundred thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the Court."
Petitioners are first-time offenders. They are Filipino entrepreneurs who presumably contribute to the national
economy. Apparently, they brought this appeal, believing in all good faith, although mistakenly, that they had
not committed a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Otherwise, they could simply have accepted the judgment of the trial
court and applied for probation to evade a prison term. It would best serve the ends of criminal justice if in
fixing the penalty within the range of discretion allowed by §1, par. 1, the same philosophy underlying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, namely, that of redeeming valuable human material and preventing
unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the
social order. 10 In this case we believe that a fine in an amount equal to double the amount of the check involved
is an appropriate penalty to impose on each of the petitioners.

Other Related Cases:

Vallarta vs CA, 29 May 1987
Rosa Lim vs PP, G.R. No. 130038, September 18, 2000

Bar Question/s & Answer/s

BP 22; Memorandum Check (1994)

1. What is a memorandum check?
2. Is the "bouncing" thereof within the purview of BP Blg. 22?

Suggested Answer:
1. A "Memorandum Check" is an ordinary check, with the word "Memorandum", "Memo" or "Mem" written
across its face, signifying that the maker or drawer engages to pay its holder absolutely thus partaking the nature
of a promissory note. It is drawn on a bank and is a bill of exchange within the purview of Section 185 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law (People vs. Judge David Nitafan, G.R. No. 75954, October 22, 1992).
2. Yes, a memorandum check is covered by Batas Pambansa No. 22 because the law covers any check whether
it is an evidence of Indebtedness, or in payment of a pre-existing obligation or as a deposit or guarantee (People
versus Nita-fan).

BP 22; Memorandum Check (1995)

1. What is a memorandum check ?
2. Is a person who issues a memorandum check without sufficient funds necessarily guilty of violating B.P.
Blg. 22? Explain.
3. Jane is a money lender. Edmund is a businessman who has been borrowing money from Jane by
rediscounting his personal checks to pay his loans. In March 1989, he borrowed P100,000 from Jane and issued
to her a check for the same amount. The check was dishonored by the drawee bank for having been drawn
against a closed account. When Edmund was notified of the dishonor of his check he promised to raise the
amount within five days. He failed. Consequently, Jane sued Edmund for violation of the Bouncing Checks
Law (BP. Blg. 22). The defense of Edmund was that he gave the check to Jane to serve as a memorandum of his
indebtedness to her and was not supposed to be encashed. Is the defense of Edmund valid? Discuss fully.

Suggested Answer:

1. A memorandum check is an ordinary check with the word "Memorandum", "Memo", or "Mem" written
across the face, signifying that the maker or drawer engages to pay its holder absolutely thus partaking the
nature of a promissory note. It is drawn on a bank and is a bill of exchange within the purview of Section 185 of
the Negotiable Instruments Law.
2. Yes, a person who issued a memorandum check without sufficient funds is guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22 as
said law covers all checks whether it is an evidence of indebtedness, or in payment of a pre¬existing obligation,
or as deposit or guarantee. (People vs. Nitafan)
3. The defense of Edmund is NOT valid. A memorandum check upon presentment is generally accepted by the
bank. It does not matter whether the check is in the nature of a memorandum as evidence of indebtedness. What
the law punishes is the mere issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the
terms and conditions relating thereto. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is a malum prohibitum. The
understanding that the check will not be presented at the bank but will be redeemed by the maker when the loan
falls due is a mere private arrangement which may not prevail to exempt it from the penal sanction of B.P. Blg.
22. (People vs. Nitafan)

BP 22; Presumption of Knowledge (2002)

A a businessman, borrowed P500,000.00 from B, a friend. To pay the loan, A issued a postdated check to be
presented for payment 30 days after the transaction. Two days before the maturity date of the check, A called up
B and told him not to deposit the check on the date stated on the face thereof, as A had not deposited in the
drawee bank the amount needed to cover the check. Nevertheless, B deposited the check in question and the
same was dishonored of insufficiency of funds. A failed to settle the amount with B in spite of the latter's
demands. Is A guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law? Explain. (5%)

Suggested Answer:
Yes, A Is liable for violation of BP. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law), Although knowledge by the drawer of
insufficiency or lack of funds at the time of the issuance of the check is an essential element of the violation, the
law presumes prima facie such knowledge, unless within five (5) banking days of notice of dishonor or
nonpayment, the drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon or makes arrangements for payment in
full by the drawee of such checks. A mere notice by the drawer A to the payee B before the maturity date of the
check will not defeat the presumption of knowledge created by the law; otherwise, the purpose and spirit of B.P.
22 will be rendered useless.

Estafa & Trust Receipt Law (1995)

Julio obtained a letter of credit from a local bank in order to import auto tires from Japan. To secure payment of
his letter of credit, Julio executed a trust receipt in favor of the bank. Upon arrival of the tires, Julio sold them
but did not deliver the proceeds to the bank. Julio was charged with estafa under P.D. No. 115 which makes the
violation of a trust receipt agreement punishable as estafa under Art. 315, par. (1), subpar. (b), of the Revised
Penal Code. Julio contended that P.D. No. 115 was unconstitutional because it violated the Bill of Rights
provision against imprisonment for nonpayment of debt. Rule on the contention of Julio, Discuss fully.

Suggested Answer:
 Such contention is invalid. A trust receipt arrangement doesn't involve merely a simple loan transaction but
includes likewise a security feature where the creditor bank extends financial assistance to the debtor-importer
in return for the collateral or security title as to the goods or merchandise being purchased or imported. The title
of the bank to the security is the one sought to be protected and not the loan which is a separate and distinct
agreement. What is being penalized under P,D. No. 115 is the misuse or misappropriation of the goods or
proceeds realized from the sale of the goods, documents or Instruments which are being held in trust for the
entrustee-banks. In other words, the law punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of
money or goods to the prejudice of the other, and hence there is no violation of the right against imprisonment
for non-payment of debt. (People vs. Nitafan, 207 SCRA 725)

II. RA 7080 – PLUNDER

Crime of Plunder
Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten
wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal act in the aggregate amount or total value of at least
Fifty million pesos (50,000,000.00)

Penalty
Punishable by reclusion perpetua to death

Rule of Evidence
It shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused, it shall be sufficient to
establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the over-all unlawful scheme
or conspirach

Prescription of Cime
- It shall prescribe in twenty (20) years
- However, the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or
from their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.

Bar Question/s & Answer/s

Plunder under RA 7080; Prescriptive Period (1993)
Through kickbacks, percentages or commissions and other fraudulent schemes conveyances and taking
advantage of his position, Andy, a former mayor of a suburban town, acquired assets amounting to P10 billion
which is grossly disproportionate to his lawful income. Due to his influence and connections and despite
knowledge by the authorities of his Ill-gotten wealth, he was charged with the crime of plunder only after
twenty (20) years from his defeat in the last elections he participated in. 1) May Andy still be held criminally
liable? Why? 2) Can the State still recover the properties and assets that he illegally acquired, the bulk of which
is in the name of his wife and children? Reason out.

Suggested Answer:
1) Andy will not be criminally liable because Section 6 of RA 7080 provides that the crime punishable
under this Act shall prescribe in twenty years and the problem asked whether Andy can still be charged with the
crime of plunder after 20 years. 2) Yes, because Section 6 provides that recovery of properties unlawfully
acquired by public officers from them or their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription,
laches or estoppel.

III. RA 3019 – GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES

Prohibition on private individuals

It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any public official to
capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly
requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some
business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such public official has to
intervene.

"close personal relation" shall include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and
professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.
 It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the
offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.

Prima facie evidence of unexplained wealth; bank secrecy

If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three hundred seventy-
nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the
name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his
other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse
and unmarried children of such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through
legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the
enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.

Cases
Suspension and loss of benefits
Segovia vs Sandiganbayan; GR 124067, 27 March 1998
Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should
he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is
acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during
suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.

It would appear, indeed, to be a ministerial duty of the court to issue an order of suspension upon
determination of the validity of the information filed before it. Once the information is found to be sufficient in
form and substance, the court is bound to issue an order of suspension as a matter of course, and there seems to
be "no ifs and buts about it."

It is not a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. In fact, if acquitted, the
official concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive
during suspension

Presuspension proceeding before trial on the merits secures to the accused adequate opportunity to challenge
the validity or regularity of the proceedings against him, such as, that he has not been afforded the right to due
preliminary investigation, that the acts imputed to him do not constitute a specific crime warranting his
mandatory suspension from office under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019,

Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth

Public officials and employees (except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or
temporary workers) have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has
the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their
spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.

The documents must be filed:

(a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;
(b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and
(c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.

Corrupt practices of public officers

Peligrino vs People; GR 136266, 13 August 2001

EUTIQUIO PELIGRINO y ALAAN and BUENAVENTURA V. BUENAFE, both public officers, being
then Examiner II and Supervisor respectively both of Region IV-A of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Makati,
Metro Manila, and as such are tasked, among others, to examine or investigate the Books of Accounts for
Income and Business Tax and other accounting records of professionals (medical practitioners) and to
determine their compliance and/or tax deficiencies after assessment, and to collect payments thereof, unlawfully
and criminally demand directly from taxpayer Antonio N. Feliciano, a practicing [g]enetology, found by both
accused to have incurred an alleged deficiency income tax assessment of P500,000.00, the amount of
P200,000.00 Philippine currency, for the purpose of applying a portion thereof in the amount of P51,858.57 as
full payment for deficiency income tax due from said taxpayer for fiscal years 1988 & 1989 and the balance of
P148,141.43 to be appropriated by both accused for themselves as gift or consideration for their promise to
make as they did lower assessment for said fiscal years 1988 & 1989 in the amount of P51,858.57…
 Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of the offense charged, but acquitted his co-accused

The elements of this offense:

(1) the offender is a public officer
(2) who requested or received a gift, a present, a share, a percentage, or a benefit
(3) on behalf of the offender or any other person
(4) in connection with a contract or transaction with the government
(5) in which the public officer, in .an official capacity under the law, has the right to intervene.

Section 3(b) of RA 3019 penalizes three distinct acts -- (1) demanding or requesting; (2) receiving; or (3)
demanding, requesting and receiving -- any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit for oneself or for any
other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the government and any other party,
wherein a public officer in an official capacity has to intervene under the law. These modes of committing the
offense are distinct and different from each other. Proof of the existence of any of them suffices to warrant
conviction.16 The lack of demand is immaterial. After all, Section 3 (b) of RA 3019 uses the word or between
requesting and receiving.

There must be a clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift so offered and consider it as
his or her own property from then on. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or
act to show acceptance is not sufficient to lead the court to conclude that the crime has been committed. To hold
otherwise would encourage unscrupulous individuals to frame up public officers by simply putting within their
physical custody some gift, money or other property.23

The duration of the possession is not the controlling element in determining receipt or acceptance. In the
case at bar, petitioner opened the envelope containing the boodle money, looked inside, closed it and placed the
envelope beside him on the table. Such reaction did not signify refusal or resistance to bribery, especially
considering that he was not supposed to accept any cash from the taxpayer.

Bar Question/s & Answer/s

Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices - RA 3019 (1997)

A is charged with the crime defined in Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in an
Information that reads: That from 01 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused, being then employed in the Office of the District Engineer, Department of Public
Works and 79 of 86 Highways and in the discharge of his official administrative functions, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of B's claim for the payment of the price of his land
which the government had expropriated, and after the claim was approved, the accused gave B only P1,000.00
of the approved claim of P5,000 and willfully and unlawfully appropriated for himself the balance of P4,000,
thus causing undue injury to B and the Government." A has filed a motion to quash the information, contending
that it does not charge an offense. Is he correct?

Suggested Answer
Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to allege that the undue injury to B and the
government was caused by the accused's manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross Inexcusable negligence,
which are necessary elements of the offense charged, ie., violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. The accused is employed in the Office of the District Engineer of the DPWH which has nothing
to do with the determination and fixing of the price of the land expropriated, and for which expropriated land
the Government is legally obligated to pay. There is no allegation in the information that the land was
overpriced or that the payment of the amount was disadvantageous to the Government. It appears that the
charge was solely based on the accused having followed up the payment for B's land which the Government has
already appropriated, and that the accused eventually withheld for himself from the price of the said land, the
amount of P4,000 for his services. No violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Act appears. At
most, the accused should be merely charged administratively

Alternative Answers:
1. Yes, A is correct in filing a motion to quash the information because Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019
applies only to officers and employees of government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits
or other concessions, and not to DPWH, which is not a government corporation.
2. A is not correct. In the case of Meforda vs. Sandiganbayan. 151 SCRA 399, which involves a substantially
identical information as the Information quoted in the question, the Supreme Court held that the Information
was valid. While it is true that the information quoted In the question, failed to allege evident bad faith, gross
 inexcusable negligence or manifest partiality, said Information Is nevertheless adequate because it averred the
three (3) elements for the violation of Section 3(c) of RA. 3012 when it stated (1) that the accused is a public
officer at the time of the commission of the crime, being employed in the Office of the District Engineer,
DPWH; (2) that the accused caused undue Injury to B and the Government, with the statement that BT the
owner of the land, received only P1,000.00 instead of the full value of P5,000.00; and (3) that in the discharge
of A's official administrative functions, he "did then and there willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate
the approval of his claim xxx and "willfully and unlawfully appropriate for himself the balance of P4,000.00 x x
x". An information need not employ or use the very words or language of the statute. It may also use words or
language of similar import.

IV. RA 8294 – ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN ACQUISITION

OR DISPOSITION OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER
PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS

Unlicensed Firearms
The term unlicensed firearm shall include:
1) Firearms with expired license; or
2) Unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the commission of the crime.

Illegal Possession of Firearms

The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of firearms is the accused’s lack of license or permit to
carry the firearms, as possession itself is not prohibited by law.

Elements
1. Accused owned or possessed the firearms;
2. He does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess; and
3. He does not have the corresponding permit to carry

Punishable Acts
1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition or
instruments used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition.
2. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or possession of explosives
3. Tampering of firearm's serial number.
4. Repacking or altering the composition of lawfully manufactured explosives.

Proper Penalties
1. Low Powered Firearm - prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen
thousand pesos (P15,000)
2. High Powered Firearm - prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000)

Note:
 Aggravating Circumstance – When homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
firearms
 Element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'etat - If the violation is
in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or
attempted coup d'etat

Cases
Sayco vs. People
A special or confidential civilian agents who are not included in the regular plantilla of any government
agency involved in law enforcement or receiving regular compensation for services rendered are not exempt
from the requirements under P.D. No 1866 as amended by R.A. No. 8294 of a regular license to possess
firearms and a permit to carry the same outside of residence; Neither will they qualify for exemption by the
mere issuance to them of a government-owned firearms covered by a memorandum receipt or mission orders to
carry firearms (whether private-owned or government-owned) outside of their residence.

Agote vs. Lorenzo

Petitioner, who was charged of illegal possession of firearms was also charged of another offense: Violation
of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 (Gun Ban), but the unlicensed firearm was not “used” or discharged in this
case. The question then which appears to be of first impression, is whether or not the unlicensed firearm should
be actually “used” and discharged in the course of committing the other crime in order that Sec. 1, Rep. Act No.
8294 will apply so that no separate crime of illegal possession of firearms may be charged.

Bar Question/s & Answer/s

Murder; Use of Illegal Firearms (2004)

PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election campaign for Mayor of their town. The Information against
PH alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim, and this was proved beyond
reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The trial court convicted PH of two crimes: murder and illegal possession
of firearms. Is the conviction correct? Reason briefly. (5%)

Suggested Answer:
No, the conviction of PH for two crimes, murder and illegal possession of firearm is not correct. Under the
new law on illegal possession of firearms and explosives, Rep. Act No. 8294, a person may only be criminally
liable for illegal possession of firearm if no other crime is committed therewith; if a homicide or murder is 57 of
86 committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. PH therefore may only be convicted of murder and the use of an unlicensed firearm in its
commission may only be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance, provided that such use is alleged
specifically in the information for Murder.