Case Digest (G.R. No. 95136)
Facts:
Baylosis v. Chavez, G.R. No. 95136, October 03, 1991, Supreme Court En Banc, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court, presents a constitutional challenge to the third paragraph of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866. Petitioners Rafael Baylosis and Benjamin de Vera were charged in the Regional Trial Court (Pasig) by information alleging unlawful possession of firearms and explosives “in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion/subversion” (March 29, 1988). The information listed an AK‑47 with magazine and rounds and three fragmentation hand grenades.Petitioners filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the challenged paragraph of PD 1866 was unconstitutional and thus the facts charged did not constitute an offense; the trial court denied the motion in a Resolution dated April 24, 1990, and denied reconsideration on July 12, 1990. Petitioners then brought a special action of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme Court seeking nullification of those trial court orders, dismissal of Criminal Case No. 72705 (or conversion of the information to simple rebellion), and a restraining order against the public officials from further prosecuting common crimes against them.
The petition renewed arguments previously rejected in Misolas v. Panga (181 SCRA 648, Jan. 30, 1990): that PD 1866 (Sec. 1, par. 3) (a) violates the doctrine of absorption in People v. Hernandez and related cases; (b) leads prosecutors to prefer qualified illegal possession over charges for rebellion; (c) is a bill of attainder; (d) permits double jeopardy; and (e) imposes cruel a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the third paragraph of Section 1 of PD 1866—punishing possession of firearms “in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with” rebellion, insurrection or subversion with reclusion perpetua—unconstitutional under the doctrines invoked by petitioners (absorption under Article 48 RPC, bill of attainder, double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection, and due process)?
- If not unconstitutional, may the prosecutorial choice to charge under PD 1866 rather than under the Revised Penal Code or other statutes render PD 1866 in...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)