Case Digest (G.R. No. 83837- 42)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Hon. Maximiano C. Asuncion, G.R. Nos. 83837-42, April 22, 1992, the Supreme Court En Banc, Nocon, J., writing for the Court.The petition arose from two sets of criminal informations filed against private respondents Paterna Ruiz, Noli G. Narca, Fr. Nick Ruiz, Lydia Narca, Rodolfo Corteza, and Tomas Dominado. On February 10, 1988 the People filed an information for subversion under R.A. 1700 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 40; on February 12, 1988 six separate informations for illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives under P.D. 1866 were filed against the same persons before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104.
The prosecution’s factual account—drawn from arrests by elements of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces in February 1988—was that the respondents were apprehended in separate operations and found in possession of various firearms, ammunition and explosives; subsequent searches of their hideouts allegedly yielded subversive materials and documents indicating affiliation or leadership in the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army.
Respondents moved to quash the P.D. 1866 informations before the RTC, arguing that the possession charges were absorbed by the subversion charge and that the two informations violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, invoking the doctrine in People v. Hernandez. On May 4, 1988, RTC Branch 104 (Presiding Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion) granted the motion to quash, holding that possession of the weapons was a constitutive ingredient of subversion and therefore could not be punished separately; the court denied reconsideration on June 8, 1988.
The People filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the RTC resolution. The Supreme Court, deciding the petition ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in quashing the P.D. 1866 informations on grounds that they were absorbed by the subversion informations and thus barred by double jeopardy?
- Is the crime of illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives under P.D. 1866 absorbed by the crime of subversion under R.A. 1700 so that the former can...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)