Practice question
A loose firearm was used in a crime. Assume the statutory comparison establishes that the maximum penalty for that crime is lower than the penalty for illegal possession under Section 28 of RA 10591, and that all relevant allegations and elements are proved. Counsel argues that Section 29 invariably requires only adding an ordinary aggravating circumstance to the lower crime penalty. Which response is correct?
- Section 29 instead directs imposition of the illegal-possession penalty in lieu of the penalty for the crime in this specified situation.
- Section 29 can never affect the applicable penalty.
- The lower crime must be treated as lawful.
- The accused may choose either penalty.
- Section 29 always requires doubling every penalty.
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.