People vs. Ringor, 320 SCRA 342 (1999)

FACTS: 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, and 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 and shot him six 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 and 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 years.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the amendatory law RA 8294 (which took effect in 1997: crime occurred in 1994) is applicable

No. 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. Whether or not RTC erred in convicting appellant for simple illegal possession of firearms and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate sentence of 17 to 20 years.

Yes. 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 No. 1866. t is simply considered as an aggravating circumstance, no longer as a separate offence.
According to the article 22 of RPC, retroactivity of the law must be applied if it is favourable to the accused.

3. Whether or not trial court erred in convicting accused of murder

No. For self-defence 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. WON RTC erred in sentencing the accused to death for muder which was not proven and that the alleged murder committed by the appellant, the appropriate penalty for the offense is reclusion perpetua due to to the absence of an aggravating circumstance.

Yes. In the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances to a crime of murder as described by art 248 of RPC, a lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua has to be imposed in according to article 63(2) of RPC