Title
People vs. Pimentel
Case
G.R. No. 100210
Decision Date
Apr 1, 1998
The Supreme Court rules that charges of subversion and illegal possession of a firearm do not constitute the same offense for double jeopardy, leading to the petitioner's immediate release.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 100210)

Facts:

  • The case involves the People of the Philippines as the petitioner and Hon. Oscar B. Pimentel, Judge of the RTC of Makati, and Antonio A. Tujan as the respondents.
  • Antonio Tujan was charged with Subversion under Republic Act No. 1700 in 1983.
  • A warrant for Tujan's arrest was issued on July 29, 1983, but remained unserved for nearly seven years due to his unavailability.
  • Tujan was arrested on June 5, 1990, during which an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver and six rounds of ammunition were found in his possession.
  • On June 14, 1990, he was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion under Presidential Decree No. 1866.
  • The trial court ordered no bail and continued Tujan's detention.
  • Tujan initially filed a motion for a preliminary investigation but later withdrew it to file a motion to quash the information.
  • On July 16, 1990, he filed the motion to quash, arguing he was already in jeopardy for the subversion charge in Criminal Case No. 64079.
  • The trial court granted the motion to quash on October 12, 1990, stating the illegal possession charge was a continuation of the subversion charge.
  • The People of the Philippines opposed this ruling and elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision on May 27, 1991.
  • The petitioner then sought a review from the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision.
  • The Court held that the information for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion did not charge Tujan with the same offense as the previous subversion charge, thus double jeopardy did not apply.
  • The Court...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court reasoned that the illegal possession charge was distinct from the subversion charge.
  • The mere possession of an unlicensed firearm constitutes a separate offense under Presidential Decree No. 1866.
  • The allegation that the firearm was used in furtherance of subversion merely described t...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.