Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People vs. Pimentel - DIGEST
People vs. Pimentel - DIGEST
him in Criminal Case No. 64079 is for Subversion, punishable under Republic
98. People vs. Pimentel Act No. 1700; while the present case is for Illegal Possession of Firearm and
GR No. 100210 | April 1, 1998 | MARTINEZ, J Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion, punishable under a different law
(Presidential Decree No. 1866).
Doctrine: The right of an accused against double jeopardy is a matter which he may TC: GRANTED Motion to Quash. MR of Petitioner was denied. He went to the CA
raise in a motion to quash to defeat a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. but the CA affirmed the decision of the TC.
ER: Antonio Tujan was charged with Subversion under Republic Act No. 1700 (the Anti- Issue: WON there is an identity of offenses in the filing of the Information for Illegal
Subversion Law), as amended. When arrested, an unlicensed revolver and 6 rounds of Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion?
live ammunition were found in his possession, hence, he was also charged with Illegal
Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion under the Held: NO.
Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended. Tujan filed a motion to quash the charge for
Illegal Possession of Firearm on the ground that he had been previously in jeopardy of Ratio: While we hold that both the subversion charge under R.A. No. 1700, as amended,
being convicted of the offense charged. The petitioner opposed the motion. The TC and the one for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in furtherance of
granted the motion. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. The subversion under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, can co-exist, the subsequent enactment of
petitioner elevated the case to the CA through a petition for certiorari. CA found that the Republic Act No. 7636 on September 22, 1992, totally repealing R.A. No. 1700, as
TC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of amended, has substantially changed the complexion of the present case, inasmuch as
jurisdiction in quashing the questioned information. Court held that there is no identity the said repealing law being favorable to the accused-private respondent, who is not a
of offenses because the previous subversion charge against Antonio Tujan before the habitual delinquent, should be given retroactive effect.
RTC of Manila is based on a different law, that is, Republic Act No. 1700, as amended.
Thus, in the present case, private respondent Antonio Tujan could be charged either Under the first paragraph Section 1 of PD 1866, the mere possession of an unlicensed
under P.D. No. 1866 or R.A. No. 1700, or both. firearm or ammunition is the crime itself which carries the penalty of reclusion temporal
in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. The third paragraph of the same Section
Facts: makes the use of said rearm and ammunition "in furtherance of, or incident to, or in
1983: Private respondent Antonio Tujan was charged with Subversion (RA connection with the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion" a circumstance to
1700) before the RTC of Manila. Thus, a warrant of arrest was issued but it increase the penalty to death. Thus, the allegation in the Information in Criminal Case No.
remained unserved as he could not be found. 1789 that the unlicensed firerearm found in the possession of Antonio Tujan, "a member
7 years after, Tujan was arrested on the basis of the warrant of arrest in the of the communist party of the Philippines and its front organization," was used "in
subversion case. When arrested, an unlicensed .38 caliber special revolver and furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion" does not
6 rounds of live ammunition were found in his possession. charge him with the separate and distinct crime of Subversion in the same Information,
June 1990: Antonio Tujan was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm but simply describes the mode or manner by which the violation of Section 1 of P.D. No.
and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion (PD 1866) before the RTC of 1866 was committed 21 so as to qualify the penalty to death.
Makati. The information read: “accused, being a member of a communist party
of the Philippines, and its front organization, did then and there willfully, There is, therefore, only one offense charged in the questioned information, that is,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody, in the illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, qualified by its being used in
furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion, a furtherance of subversion. There is nothing in P.D. No. 1866, specifically Section 1
special edition ARMSCOR PHILS. caliber .38 special revolver with Serial No. thereof, which decrees categorically or by implication that the crimes of rebellion,
1026387 and with six (6) live ammunitions, without first securing the insurrection or subversion are the very acts that are being penalized.
necessary license or permit thereof from competent government authority."
Antonio Tujan filed a motion to quash the Information on the ground that he Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated
"has been previously in jeopardy of being convicted of the offense charged" (for May 27, 1991, in CA-G.R. SP No. 24273, including the orders dated October 12, 1990 and
subversion) of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. In support of this, Tujan December 28, 1990 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 148), National Capital
contends that "common crimes such as illegal possession of firearms and Region, in Criminal Case No. 1789, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
ammunition should actually be deemed absorbed in subversion". Furthermore,
he avers that "the present case is the twin prosecution" of "the earlier
subversion case" and, therefore, he "is entitled to invoke the constitutional
protection against double jeopardy."
The petitioner opposed the motion to quash, arguing that Antonio Tujan does
not stand in jeopardy of being convicted a second time because (a) he has not
even been arraigned in the subversion case, and (b) the offense charged against