Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 107 views

    37 People v. Ringor PDF

    Uploaded by

    KED
    The Supreme Court modified the penalty of death imposed by the trial court on the accused to reclusion perpetua. At the time the murder was committed, the law making the use of an unlicensed firearm an aggravating circumstance (RA 8294) was not yet in effect. Applying the new law retroactively would constitute an ex post facto law as it is not favorable to the accused. While the accused was found guilty of murder, the trial court erred in considering the unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance to impose the death penalty, as the law at the time did not classify it as such.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    37 People v. Ringor PDF

    Uploaded by

    KED
    107 views1 page
    The Supreme Court modified the penalty of death imposed by the trial court on the accused to reclusion perpetua. At the time the murder was committed, the law making the use of an unlicensed firearm an aggravating circumstance (RA 8294) was not yet in effect. Applying the new law retroactively would constitute an ex post facto law as it is not favorable to the accused. While the accused was found guilty of murder, the trial court erred in considering the unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance to impose the death penalty, as the law at the time did not classify it as such.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    37 People v. Ringor.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court modified the penalty of death imposed by the trial court on the accused to reclusion perpetua. At the time the murder was committed, the law making the use of an unlicensed firearm an aggravating circumstance (RA 8294) was not yet in effect. Applying the new law retroactively would constitute an ex post facto law as it is not favorable to the accused. While the accused was found guilty of murder, the trial court erred in considering the unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance to impose the death penalty, as the law at the time did not classify it as such.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    107 views1 page

    37 People v. Ringor PDF

    Uploaded by

    KED
    The Supreme Court modified the penalty of death imposed by the trial court on the accused to reclusion perpetua. At the time the murder was committed, the law making the use of an unlicensed firearm an aggravating circumstance (RA 8294) was not yet in effect. Applying the new law retroactively would constitute an ex post facto law as it is not favorable to the accused. While the accused was found guilty of murder, the trial court erred in considering the unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance to impose the death penalty, as the law at the time did not classify it as such.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    37 PEOPLE V RINGOR MRBH

    PEOPLE v AUGUSTO LORETO RINGOR, JR.


    G.R. No. 123918. | December 9, 1999|En Banc|PURISIMA|ex post facto law
    DOCTRINE: Pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, where the new law is favorable to the accused, it has to be
    applied retroactively.

    The amendatory law making the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, cannot be
    applied here because the said provision of R.A. No. 8294 is not favorable to accused-appellant, lest it becomes an ex post facto
    law.
    CASE SUMMARY: Accused was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to death penalty as the RTC considered his use
    of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance pursuant to RA 8294.

    However, upon automatic review by the SC, it modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. At the time the murder was
    committed, RA 8294 which made the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance, was not yet in effect.
    Therefore, since its provisions is not favorable to the accused, it cannot be applied retroactively or else it will be an ex post
    facto law.
    FACTS:
    • Accused-appellant Augusto Loreto Ringor, Jr. was found guilty of the crime of murder and was sentenced to suffer death
    penalty by RTC Baguio.
    • He was also separately found guilty of illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866
    • The decision is now with the SC for automatic review.
    • One of the accused’s contention was with regard to the death penalty imposed.
    o In the RTC ruling, the use of an unlicensed firearm was considered as an aggravating circumstance which elevated
    the penalty to death.
    • For the accused, assuming arguendo that murder was committed by him, the appropriate penalty should only be reclusion
    perpetua there being aggravating circumstance

    RULING: W/N the RTC properly considered the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance that
    would raise the penalty for murder from reclusion perpetua to death – NO

    • According to the SC, there is no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance attendant therefore the lesser penalty of
    reclusion perpetua must be applied.
    • As held in the case of People vs. Molina, 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 P.D. No. 1866 in view of
    the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 8294.
    • RA 8294 considers the use of an unlicensed firearm an aggravating circumstance in murder and homicide and no longer as
    a separate offense. Where murder or homicide was committed, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is no longer
    imposable since it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance.
    • Pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, where the new law is favorable to the accused, it has to be applied
    retroactively.
    • In this case, the trial court erred in appreciating the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance to impose
    death penalty on the accused.
    • It should be noted that at the time accused-appellant perpetrated the offense, the unlicensed character of a firearm used in
    taking the life of another was not yet an aggravating circumstance in homicide or murder.
    • The amendatory law making the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide,
    cannot be applied here because the said provision of R.A. No. 8294 is not favorable to accused-appellant, lest it becomes
    an ex post facto law.

    DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the decision is modified where accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
    reclusion perpetua.

    NOTES:

    You might also like