G.R. No. L-19344 - Bulaong vs. People

On May 31, 1956, Agaton Bulaong and others were charged with the crime of rebellion before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Laguna.
The trial in the rebellion case did not proceed with respect to Bulaong initially because he was at large.
During this period, Congress enacted the Anti-Subversion Act (Republic Act 1700), which took effect on June 20, 1957.

The information for rebellion, pending in the CFI of Laguna, was amended to include allegations that Bulaong, as an organizer and leader, intentionally joined the Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) and its military arm, the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB). This information detailed his participation in activities aimed at overthrowing the government and his involvement in armed raids and attacks against government forces.
Another information was concurrently filed before the CFI of Manila charging Bulaong with subversion, as defined in Section 4 of Republic Act 1700, alleging that he had become an officer and/or a ranking leader of the outlawed organizations (the CCP and HMB) and continued in that capacity without renouncing his membership.

The rebellion case in Laguna had already been decided against Bulaong, with the offense for which he was convicted carrying a sentence of 10 years of prision mayor, a fine, and additional costs.
The subversion case in Manila was still pending when Bulaong raised his defense.

Bulaong contended that the charge of rebellion under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code was a lesser cognate offense compared to the charge of subversion under Republic Act 1700.
He argued that since both information documents involved substantially the same allegations and facts, prosecuting him on both counts would subject him to double jeopardy, as he would be punished twice for the same acts.

Bulaong relied on Section 9, Rule 113 (or Rule 117 in some sources) of the Rules of Court, which provides that double jeopardy applies only where the accused has been convicted, acquitted, or when the proceedings had been dismissed or terminated without his consent.

Whether Agaton Bulaong may invoke the defense of double jeopardy on account of the separate prosecutions for rebellion and subversion, given that:

The allegations in both cases are substantially similar, involving his role in the Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) and its military arm, and the same overall conduct.
His conviction in the rebellion case might purportedly preclude further prosecution for the subversion offense as a lesser cognate offense.

Whether the defense of double jeopardy is applicable given that the subversion case remains pending and has not reached a final resolution (acquittal, conviction, or dismissal) against him.