Title
Madrigal vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 182694
Decision Date
Aug 13, 2008
Igmidio Madrigal was convicted for violating the election gun ban but acquitted of illegal firearm possession under RA 8294, which bars double conviction for related offenses.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 182694)

Background of the Case

Igmidio Madrigal was charged with two distinct offenses in the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, related to the illegal possession of a .38 caliber revolver during the election period in 1998. The charges were violations of Presidential Decree (PD) 1866, amended by Republic Act (RA) 8294, and violations of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended by RA 7166. The factual basis for the charges revolved around Madrigal's possession of an unlicensed firearm and live ammunition without the requisite permit during a designated election period.

Trial Court Proceedings

Madrigal pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases. He was sentenced in Criminal Case No. 1026-SPL to an indeterminate prison term of two years, eleven months, and ten days, up to five years, four months, and twenty days, along with a fine of P15,000 for violating PD 1866. In Criminal Case No. 1025-SPL, he received a sentence of one to three years, along with accessory penalties, for violating the election gun ban.

Appeal to Court of Appeals

Madrigal subsequently appealed the decision, questioning the sufficiency of evidence presented against him and his conviction under both criminal statutes. The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC's decision regarding his guilt but modified the penalty under Criminal Case No. 1026-SPL, reducing his prison term.

Supreme Court Proceedings

In his petition for review on certiorari, Madrigal contended his acquittal of both offenses, specifically arguing against his convictions considering the provisions of RA 8294, which states that an individual cannot be concurrently convicted for illegal possession of firearm if another crime has taken place.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court largely agreed with Madrigal's assertions related to the overlapping charges. Upholding the factual findings regarding his possession of an unlicensed firearm, the Court maintained respect for the lower courts’ factual determinations. However, it recognized that under Section 1 of RA 8294, Madrigal could not be convicted for illegal possession of a firearm while also being convicted of violating the election gun ban in the same incident. The Court reference

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.