G.R. No. 108001 - San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission

In 1983, private respondent Antonio A. Tujan was charged with Subversion under Republic Act No. 1700 (Anti-Subversion Law), before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 45 (Criminal Case No. 64079). A warrant of arrest was issued on July 29, 1983, but remained unserved as Tujan could not be located.
On June 5, 1990, Antonio Tujan was arrested based on the previously issued warrant. Upon arrest, he was found in possession of an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver and six live rounds of ammunition.

Subsequent Charge for Illegal Possession of Firearm in Furtherance of Subversion

On June 14, 1990, 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 (Criminal Case No. 1789). The Information alleged that Tujan, being a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines and its front organization, unlawfully possessed the firearm and ammunition in furtherance of subversion.
The prosecution recommended no bail, and the court ordered continued detention at the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP).

Tujan, through counsel, filed a motion invoking his right to a preliminary investigation, which was withdrawn the next day to file a motion to quash the Information.
On July 16, 1990, a motion to quash was filed contending that the illegal possession charge should be considered absorbed by the subversion case, invoking double jeopardy protections. He cited cases (Misolas v. Panga and Enrile v. Salazar) to support that the firearm offense is a lesser-included offense or absorbed by subversion.
The prosecution opposed, arguing Tujan was not in jeopardy as he had not been arraigned in the subversion case, and that the offenses are distinct under different laws with separate elements. They also clarified that possession of firearms is not a necessary means of committing subversion and that the cited cases were inapplicable.

On October 12, 1990, the RTC of Makati granted the motion to quash the Information for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion, holding that the main offense charged was actually subversion and thus double jeopardy applied. The court clarified that subversion is a continuing offense, and the illegal possession charge relates only as part of subversion.
The trial court dismissed the case without prejudice to the filing of simple illegal possession of firearm charges.

The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied in December 1990 by the RTC.
The People elevated the case to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 24273).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s order, agreeing that the Information was duplicitous and that double jeopardy attached because the illegal possession charge was essentially subversion qualified by possession of firearms.
The People filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court analyzed the pertinent laws: PD No. 1866 punishing illegal possession of firearms with severe penalties and increased penalty if in furtherance or connection with rebellion, insurrection, or subversion.
RA No. 1700 penalizes membership in subversive organizations. Both charges against Tujan are based on separate laws with distinct elements.
The Court discussed the double jeopardy principle and procedural requirements for it to apply, emphasizing that the accused must have pleaded to the first charge and that prosecution or acquittal must have already occurred, which was not the case here.
The Court distinguished the present situation from the cited cases, holding that illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion is a separate offense from subversion itself.

The repeal of RA No. 1700 by RA No. 7636 in 1992, which abolished the crime of subversion, was noted as a significant subsequent development. The repeal was absolute, with no saving clause, meaning subversion no longer exists as a crime.
The illegal possession charge qualified by subversion must thus be amended to simple illegal possession because subversion is no longer a crime.
Under RA No. 8294 (1997), penalties for illegal possession were reduced, making it bailable.
Given Tujan’s detention since 1990 exceeding even the penalty under new law, the Court ordered his immediate release unless detained for other offenses.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the main offense in the illegal possession charge was subversion, justifying quashing the charge for double jeopardy.
Whether private respondent Antonio Tujan’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy was violated by filing a separate case of illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion while the subversion charge was still pending.
The legal effect of the repeal of RA No. 1700 (Anti-Subversion Law) by RA No. 7636 on the pending subversion case against Tujan and on the related illegal possession charge qualified by subversion.
Whether Tujan was entitled to release given the changes in law and the length of his pre-trial detention.