Practice question
A gun is registered to Arturo, but Benito possesses and uses it in a crime without being its licensee. Benito argues that registration alone conclusively prevents the gun from being a loose firearm. Under RA 10591, is that argument correct?
- Yes, because every registered firearm is excluded.
- Yes, unless Arturo personally complains.
- No; the statutory definition includes a registered firearm possessed by someone other than its licensee.
- No, because every firearm is necessarily loose.
- Yes, if Benito intends to return it.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, specified articles, as amended: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426; Articles 14, 62 and 64.
- Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 110 Sections 8–9, allegation of qualifying and aggravating circumstances: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html
- RA 9165, Section 25, statutory qualifying aggravation: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/1435
- RA 10175, Section 6, ICT-qualified offenses and one-degree enhancement: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2012/ra_10175_2012.html
- RA 10591, Sections 3(v) and 29, loose-firearm definition and penalty rules: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2013/ra_10591_2013.html
- Togado v People, G.R. No. 260973, August 6, 2024, en banc main decision, firearm evidence guidelines: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/aug2024/gr_260973_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.