Case Digest (G.R. No. 170562)
Facts:
On May 12, 2004, in Roxas City, petitioner Angel Celino, Sr. was charged by two separate informations before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 16 (Presiding Judge Hon. Delano F. Villaruz), for (1) violation of Section 2(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 6446 (gun ban) in Criminal Case No. C-137-04, and (2) violation of Section 1, Paragraph 2 of Republic Act No. 8294 (illegal possession of firearm) in Criminal Case No. C-138-04. Both informations alleged that he unlawfully carried outside his residence one Armalite rifle Colt M16 with two magazines loaded with thirty live ammunitions during the election period without proper authority and possessed the same firearm without a license. In C-138-04 he pleaded not guilty to the gun ban violation, while in C-137-04 he filed a Motion to Quash before arraignment, arguing that separate prosecution for illegal possession was barred by the same facts forming the basis of the gun ban charge. By Order of July 29, 2004, the trial courCase Digest (G.R. No. 170562)
Facts:
- Parties and Proceedings
- Petitioner Angel Celino, Sr. filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing:
- Court of Appeals Decision dated April 18, 2005 affirming the trial court’s denial of his Motion to Quash.
- Resolution dated September 26, 2005 denying his Motion for Reconsideration.
- Respondents are the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Capiz, and the People of the Philippines.
- Underlying Criminal Cases
- Criminal Case No. C-137-04 (gun ban violation)
- Charged violation of Section 2(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 6446 for carrying an Armalite rifle M16 with serial No. 3210606 and ammunition during the election period without COMELEC authority.
- Arraignment and plea entered: “not guilty.”
- Criminal Case No. C-138-04 (illegal possession of firearm)
- Charged violation of Section 1, Paragraph 2 of R.A. 8294 for possessing the same firearm and ammunition without proper license or permit.
- Prior to arraignment, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash this information.
- Motions and Orders
- Trial court (RTC Roxas City) denied the Motion to Quash on July 29, 2004, relying on Margarejo v. Escoses that gun ban violation is not among the “other crimes” under R.A. 8294’s proviso.
- Trial court also denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration on September 22, 2004.
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by certiorari petition; CA Decision dated April 18, 2005 affirmed the RTC’s denial.
- CA denied his Motion for Reconsideration on September 26, 2005.
- On December 2, 2005, petitioner filed the present certiorari petition before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Procedural Issue
- Whether petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a timely and proper remedy to assail the CA’s decision and resolution, instead of a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.
- Substantive Issue
- Whether, under the proviso of Section 1 of R.A. 8294, the pendency or filing of a gun ban violation bars a separate prosecution for illegal possession of firearm.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)