Illegal Possession of Firearms: Concepts

Here's another law that has a lot of court cases: PD 1866, amended by RA 8294, the law on illegal possession of firearms.

Unlicensed Firearm

Under RA 8294, the concept of an unlicensed firearm was expanded from possessing unlicensed firearms to include firearms with expired licenses and the unauthorized use of a licensed firearm in the commission of a crime.

One such example of the second instance is carrying a firearm outside one's residence without a permit (you need both a license for the firearm as well as a permit to carry it if you want to take it outdoors.) Another example is the unauthorized carrying a firearm in violation of the gun ban during election time (People vs. Molina, 294 SCRA 220.)

Unless covered by a special law, the illegal possession of firearms will be considered a special kind of aggravating circumstance (People vs. Montinola, GR 131856, July 9, 2001; Palaganas vs. People, 501 SCRA 533; People vs. Lara, 505 SCRA 137) or, in the case of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat, the possession will be absorbed as an element of the crime. The accused therefore can't be convicted of 2 separate crimes (People vs. Montinola.) What PD 1866 punishes is the simple violation of illegal possession of firearms.

Nature

Illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum in nature. Consequently, good faith and lack of criminal intent can't be used as defenses (People vs. Garcia, GR 102009-10, July 6, 1994.) Ownership isn't an essential element, because the firearm can be licensed under one person's name but used by another (such as in the case of a security guard.) What is essential is that the accused has an intent to possess, regardless of whether the possession is made in good faith or not. Intent to possess must therefore be established.

Elements:

1.) The existence of the firearm and/or ammunition in question

2.) The accused lacks the necessary license and/or permit

Even if the firearm isn't offered in evidence, the accused can still be convicted if there is a testimony to the gun's existence (People vs. Tagaba, 342 SCRA 119, People vs. Narvasa 298 SCRA 637,) which is why ownership isn't an essential element. If someone testifies to the gun's existence, the first element can already be proven even if the gun isn't presented in evidence (People vs. Dulay, 535 SCRA 119.) Even a certification from the Firearms and Explosives unit will suffice (People vs. Narvasa.)