Case Digest (G.R. No. 83341)
Facts:
Arnel P. Misolas v. Hon. Benjamin V. Panga, as Judge of RTC Branch 33, Cadlan, Pili, Camarines Sur and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 83341, January 30, 1990, the Supreme Court En Banc, Cortes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Arnel P. Misolas was arrested after a Philippine Constabulary raid in the early morning of August 8, 1987, on a house in Foster Village, Del Carmen, Pili, Camarines Sur. The raiding party reportedly found, in a red bag under a pillow allegedly used by petitioner, a .20 gauge Remington shotgun and four live rounds of ammunition; two women with aliases escaped during the raid. Petitioner was brought to PC headquarters and an information was filed on September 4, 1987, charging him with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Presidential Decree No. 1866; the information alleged the firearm and ammunition were used "in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion" (third paragraph, Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1866), thereby invoking the higher penalty.
Upon arraignment petitioner, through appointed counsel, pleaded "not guilty." Counsel later moved to withdraw the plea to permit filing of a motion to quash; the trial court (Judge Benjamin V. Panga, RTC Branch 33) gave petitioner time to file a motion to quash. Petitioner moved to quash on two grounds: (1) the facts charged do not constitute the offense as framed because, he argued, the proper charge should be subversion or rebellion (invoking the doctrine of absorption from People v. Hernandez and related cases); and (2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his person because his arrest and the seizure of the firearm and ammunition were allegedly illegal (violations of arrest and search-and-seizure rules).
The trial court denied the motion to quash in an order dated January 7, 1988, and denied reconsideration on February 15, 1988. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court challenging the trial court's denial as amounting to grave abuse of discretion. In his Supreme Court pleadings petitioner principally urged that the third paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 is unconstitutional (substantive due process/absorption), and he also pressed the illegality of arrest/search and seizure. While the Court intended to reach both issues, petitioner later filed a manifest...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the third paragraph of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (penalizing illegal possession of firearms and ammunition "in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with" rebellion, insurrection or subversion) unconstitutional?
- Did the trial court lack jurisdiction over petitioner because of unlawful arrest and...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)