People v.

Pimentel
G.R. No. 100210 April 1, 1998 Martinez, J
Petitioners Respondents
People of the Philippines Hon. Oscar B Pimentel as Judge of RTC
of Makati Branch 148, Antonio A. Tujan
RECIT-READY:
As early as 1983, private respondent Antonio Tujan was charged with Subversion
under Republic Act No. 1700 (the Anti-Subversion Law), as amended, before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 45). A warrant for his arrest was issued on
July 29, 1983, but it remained unserved as he could not be found. Almost seven (7)
years thereafter, or on June 5, 1990, Antonio Tujan was arrested on the basis of
the warrant of arrest in the subversion case. When arrested, an unlicensed .38
caliber special revolver and six (6) rounds of live ammunition were found in his
possession.

Consequently, on June 14, 1990, Antonio Tujan was charged with Illegal
Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion under
Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, before the Regional Trial Court of
Makati (Branch 148).

Tujan filed a motion to quash the Information in the second criminal case on the
grounds that he has previously been convicted in the earlier case of the same
offense. The trial court granted the motion to quash the Information in the second
criminal case and dismissed it, saying that the charges in both cases are the same
(that the illegal possession of firearms was for the purpose of subversion) thereby
constituting a double jeopardy for Tujan. CA affirmed the decision.

The Court ruled otherwise, saying that the charges in the two cases against Tujan
are not the same.

However, with the enactment of R.A. No. 7636, the charge of subversion against
Tujan has no more legal basis and is dismissed. Tujan, who has been in jail for
more than seven years, should be released, if there are no other charges against
him, as the penalty prescribe by R.A. 8294 is imprisonment for a maximum of six
years.
NATURE OF THE CASE:
First charge against Tujan for Subversion went sour because he could not be
found. Tujan, when arrested 7 years later for the first charge, was then charged
with Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion.
Tujan filed for a motion to quash the second case for double jeopardy. RTC
granted the motion. Prosecution raised the case to the CA. CA affirmed the RTC
ruling. Prosecution elevated the case to the SC as an appeal by certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE: (not previously stated above)
Criminal Case No. 64079: Tujan’s first charge which was unserved until he was
found.
Criminal Case No. 1789: Tujan’s second charge which was given after he was
arrested and found with live ammunition.

In support of the motion, Antonio Tujan contends that common crimes such as
illegal possession of firearms and ammunition should actually be deemed absorbed
in subversion, citing the cases of Misolas vs. Panga, et al. and Enrile vs. Salazar,
et al. Antonio Tujan then 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 him in
Criminal Case No. 64079 is for Subversion, punishable under Republic Act No.
1700; while the present case is for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in
Furtherance of Subversion, punishable under a different law (Presidential Decree
No. 1866). Moreover, petitioner contends that Antonio Tujans reliance on
the Misolas and Enrile cases is misplaced. Tujan merely relies on the dissenting
opinionsin the Misolas case. Also, the Enrile case which involved a complex crime
of rebellion with murder is inapplicable to the instant case which is not a complex
offense. Thus, the absorption rule as held applicable in the Enrile ruling has no
room for application in the present case because (illegal) possession of firearm and
ammunition is not a necessary means of committing the offense of subversion, nor
is subversion a necessary means of committing the crime of illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition.

ISSUES: Ruling
1. Is the accused charged with the same offense in both cases, which No
would justify the dismissal of the second charge on the ground of
double jeopardy?
RULING/RATIONALE:
1. The right of an accused against double jeopardy is a matter which he may raise
in a motion to quash to defeat a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.
In the present case, Tujan’s motion to quash filed in the trial court did not
actually raise the issue of double jeopardy simply because it had not arisen yet
(that his illegal possession of firearms were for the purpose of subversion).
Tujan has not even been arraigned in the first criminal action for
subversion. Besides, as earlier discussed, the two criminal charges against
Tujan are not of the same offense as required by Section 21, Article III of the
Constitution, the first being subversion and the second being merely the illegal
possession of firearms.
LAWS, STATUTES, CODES INVOLVED:
Revised Rules of Court Rule 117
R.A. No. 1700 (Anti-Subversion Act)
P.D. No. 1866 (CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION,
MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION, OF
FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND
IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND
FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES)
R.A. No. 7636 (Act Repealing the Anti-Subversion Act)
R.A. No. 8294 (Act Amending P.D. 1866)
DISPOSITION:
CA decision, including orders, are reversed and set aside. Subversion case against
Tujan is dismissed. The charge of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in
furtherance of subversion against Tujan is amended to simple illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition.
DICTA RELATING TO DOCTRINE:
While we hold that both the subversion charge under R.A. No. 1700, as amended,
and the one for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in furtherance of
subversion under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, can co-exist,
the subsequent enactment of Republic Act No. 7636 on September 22,
1992, totally repealing R.A. No. 1700, as amended, has substantially changed the
complexion of the present case, inasmuch as the said repealing law being
favorable to Tujan, who is not a habitual delinquent, should be given retroactive
effect.
CASES CITED IN CASE:
Misolas vs. Panga, et al. (G. R. No. 83341, January 30, 1990, 181 SCRA 648)
Enrile vs. Salazar, et al. (G. R. No. 92163, June 5, 1990, 186 SCRA 217)