TL;DR

In People v. Bustamante, the Supreme Court clarified how new laws affect old crimes, particularly concerning firearms and treachery. The Court found Allen Bustamante guilty of murder and frustrated murder, affirming the presence of treachery in the shooting of George Gelvero and Narciso Flores. However, it reversed the trial court’s decision to apply a law retroactively that would have increased Bustamante’s penalty for using an unlicensed firearm, emphasizing that laws cannot be applied retroactively if they disadvantage the accused. Bustamante was acquitted of illegal possession of firearms, and his sentence for frustrated murder was adjusted to comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Sudden Attack: When Can a New Firearms Law Increase an Old Sentence?

This case revolves around the tragic events of November 22, 1996, when George Gelvero was fatally shot and Narciso Flores was wounded in Iloilo City. The central legal question is whether a law enacted after the crime—specifically, one regarding the use of unlicensed firearms—can retroactively increase the severity of the punishment. This involves navigating the complexities of criminal law, where the principle of retroactivity must balance fairness to the accused with the state’s interest in justice.

The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Bustamante, armed with an unlicensed .22 caliber revolver, ambushed Gelvero and Flores. Flores survived and identified Bustamante as the shooter. The defense argued illegal arrest, planted evidence, and mistaken identity. The trial court convicted Bustamante of murder and frustrated murder, appreciating treachery and the use of an unlicensed firearm as aggravating circumstances, which led to a death sentence for murder and a 20-year term for frustrated murder. The court also dismissed the charge for illegal possession of firearms but considered the unlicensed firearm as an aggravating factor.

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions for murder and frustrated murder. They found the eyewitness testimony of Flores credible and the defense of alibi weak. The Court emphasized that treachery was present, as the attack was sudden and unexpected, giving the victims no chance to defend themselves. Treachery, in legal terms, is defined as employing means and methods to ensure the execution of a crime against persons without risk to the offender from any defense the offended party might make. This element elevated the crime to murder. However, the Court disagreed with the trial court’s use of the unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance.

Building on this, the Court clarified the application of Republic Act (RA) 8294, which amended Presidential Decree (PD) 1866, stating that the use of an unlicensed firearm could aggravate the crimes of homicide or murder. RA 8294 took effect on July 6, 1997, after the crime was committed. Citing People vs. Valdez, the Court held that while RA 8294 could be applied retroactively to benefit the accused (by preventing a separate conviction for illegal possession of firearms), it could not be applied retroactively to their detriment (by aggravating their offense). This is rooted in the principle that laws should not be applied retroactively if they increase the punishment for acts already committed.

“Insofar as this particular provision of RA 8294 is not beneficial to accused-appellant because it unduly aggravates the crime, this new law will not be given retroactive application, lest it might acquire the character of an ex-post facto law.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of minority as a mitigating circumstance. The defense raised this late in the proceedings, after the trial, with a birth certificate as evidence. The Court did not consider this evidence, citing Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which states that a court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. Because the defense did not provide this evidence during the trial, the Court did not consider the mitigating circumstance of minority.

Regarding the penalty for frustrated murder, the Supreme Court noted the trial court’s error in imposing a straight 20-year term of reclusion temporal. The Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which allows for a lower penalty. The penalty for frustrated murder ranges from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of reclusion temporal. The Supreme Court adjusted the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

The Court also re-evaluated the damages awarded by the trial court. It removed the unclear amount of P75,000, but affirmed P41,200 as burial expenses for George Gelvero and P140,000 for Narciso Flores’ medical expenses. The Court also awarded P50,000 as civil indemnity to Gelvero’s heirs and increased moral damages to P50,000 for Gelvero’s mother’s emotional suffering. The P20,000 awarded as moral damages to Narciso Flores was deleted because he did not testify to any emotional distress resulting from the crime.

FAQs

This case illustrates the complexities of applying new laws to past actions, particularly in criminal justice. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that while beneficial changes in the law can be applied retroactively, those that increase penalties cannot. This ensures fairness and protects individuals from being punished more severely than the law allowed at the time of their offense.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Allen Bustamante, G.R. Nos. 140724-26, February 12, 2003