Case Summary (G.R. No. 100210)
Facts and Procedural History
Antonio Tujan was charged with Subversion in 1983 under R.A. No. 1700 before the RTC of Manila, with an arrest warrant issued that same year but unexecuted due to his elusiveness. He was arrested seven years later in 1990, during which an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver and live ammunition were found in his possession. Subsequently, he was charged separately for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion under P.D. No. 1866 before the RTC of Makati.
Tujan filed a motion to quash the firearms charge on grounds of double jeopardy, asserting that illegal possession of firearms is subsumed under subversion. The trial court granted the motion to quash that Information, reasoning that illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of subversion was essentially part of the subversion charge already pending, and thus prosecuting the firearms charge constituted double jeopardy.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, adopting the position that the main offense charged in the firearm Information was subversion, qualified by the possession of firearms. It found the firearm charge duplicative and barred by the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The Court agreed the illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of subversion is essentially a continuing offense connected to the prior subversion charge.
Issues Raised
The People's petition to the Supreme Court questions (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting the firearm offense as included in the subversion offense; and (2) whether petitioner was denied due process in prosecuting the firearms charge after the subversion case was filed.
The petitioner contends that (a) the firearms offense is distinct and separate from subversion, punishable under a different statute; (b) double jeopardy does not apply as the accused had not yet been arraigned or put in jeopardy for subversion; and (c) the cited cases relied upon by Tujan are either dissenting opinions or inapplicable precedents.
Legal Analysis on the Nature of the Offenses
The Supreme Court emphasized that under P.D. No. 1866, the crime is illegal possession of firearms or ammunition, with the “in furtherance of subversion” clause merely imposing a higher penalty, not creating a separate crime of subversion itself. Hence, the firearms offense and subversion charge are distinct offenses under different laws and punishable separately. The manner in which the firearm was used (i.e., in furtherance of subversion) qualifies the penalty but does not transform the firearms offense into a subversion offense.
Conversely, the subversion charge under R.A. No. 1700 penalizes membership and overt acts affiliating with subversive organizations. This is a separate substantive crime unrelated to the mere possession of firearms, even if related in context.
Double Jeopardy Principles Applied
The Court reiterated that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Section 21, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, prohibits placing a person twice in jeopardy for the same offense. However, for double jeopardy to apply, the first prosecution must have a valid complaint, a competent court, the accused must have pleaded to the charge, and the case ended without consent of the accused.
In Tujan’s case, he had not been arraigned or pleaded to the subversion charge, and thus was not yet in jeopardy. Furthermore, the offenses charged are not the same—illegal possession of firearms and subversion are separate crimes under separate statutes; thus, double jeopardy does not attach.
Effect of the Repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law (R.A. No. 7636)
Although not raised by parties, the Supreme Court recognized the total repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law by R.A. No. 7636 in 1992, which abolished the crime of subversion. The repeal is categorical and absolute with no saving clause, thereby nullifying the prior subversion charge against Tujan. The Court applied the repeal retroactively because it is favorable to the accused, depriving courts of jurisdiction to try offenses that no longer exist under the law.
Amendment of the Firearms Offense and Application of New Penal Provisions
Given the repeal of the subversion charge, the Court ordered the Information for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in furtherance of subversion to be amended to simple illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Furthermore, the enactment of R.A. No. 8294 in 1997 amended P.D. No. 1866 by removing the death penalty for possession of firearms in furtherance of subversion and reducing penalties for simple illegal possession. Under the amended law, simple illegal possession is bailable and carries a penalty of prision correccional (imprisonment of 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 6 years) and a fine of not less than P15,000.
Release of the Accused and Final Disposition
Considering that Tujan had been detained since his arrest in 1990—over seven years at the time of t
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 100210)
Facts of the Case
- Private respondent Antonio A. Tujan was first charged with Subversion under Republic Act No. 1700 (the Anti-Subversion Law), as amended, before the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 45), docketed as Criminal Case No. 64079, with an arrest warrant issued on July 29, 1983.
- The arrest warrant remained unserved for nearly seven years until Tujan's arrest on June 5, 1990.
- Upon arrest, Tujan was found possessing an unlicensed .38 caliber special revolver and six rounds of live ammunition.
- Subsequently, Antonio Tujan was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, before the Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 148), docketed as Criminal Case No. 1789.
- The Information detailed that Tujan, a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines and its front, possessed these firearms and ammunition in furtherance of subversion, without the necessary license.
- Bail was denied, and Tujan was detained at the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
- Tujan moved to quash the second Information on the ground of double jeopardy, asserting the illegal possession charge was absorbed by the earlier subversion charge.
- The prosecution opposed the motion, arguing the offenses were distinct and that Tujan had not yet been arraigned in the first case, thus double jeopardy did not attach.
Trial Court Ruling
- The Regional Trial Court of Makati granted Tujan’s motion to quash the Information for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion.
- The RTC reasoned that the main offense charged was Subversion, with illegal possession merely an incident or in furtherance thereof.
- It held that since subversion is a continuing offense, the second charge was effectively a continuation of the first, hence subject to double jeopardy.
- The RTC allowed the prosecution to file a new Information for Simple Illegal Possession but dismissed the current Information without prejudice.
Court of Appeals Decision
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s ruling, finding no grave abuse of discretion.
- The appellate court echoed the view that the illegal possession charge was inseparable from the subversion charge, making them essentially the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.
- The CA characterized the illegal possession Information as a "qualified" subversion charge, referencing Tujan’s affiliation with the communist party and framing the possession as in furtherance of subversion.
Issues Presented for Resolution
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC's decision that subversion was the main offense and that the charge for illegal possession in furtherance of subversion should be quashed due to previous subversion charges.
- Whether double jeopardy applied because the accused was charged with the same offense