Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18034)
Facts of Arrest and Separate Informations
Antonio Tujan was charged with Subversion under R.A. No. 1700 in 1983 before RTC Manila (Criminal Case No. 64079); an arrest warrant issued July 29, 1983 remained unserved until his arrest on June 5, 1990. At arrest he was found in possession of an unlicensed .38 revolver and six live rounds. On June 14, 1990 the People filed an Information in RTC Makati (Criminal Case No. 1789) charging Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion under P.D. No. 1866, as amended.
Contents of the P.D. No. 1866 Information
The Information in Criminal Case No. 1789 alleged that on June 5, 1990 Tujan, “being a member of a communist party of the Philippines, and its front organization,” willfully possessed an unlicensed .38 special revolver and six live rounds “in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion.” The Information sought to qualify the offense under P.D. No. 1866 so as to invoke the enhanced penalty provision applicable when illegal possession is in furtherance of subversion.
Procedural Steps Taken by Accused
Tujan sought a preliminary investigation under Rule 112, Section 7, but his counsel withdrew that motion to file a motion to quash. On July 16, 1990 counsel filed a motion to quash the P.D. No. 1866 Information on double jeopardy grounds, contending that illegal possession in furtherance of subversion is absorbed by the earlier subversion charge and thus the Makati prosecution was a “twin prosecution” of the earlier subversion case.
Trial Court Ruling Granting Motion to Quash
On October 12, 1990 the RTC Makati granted the motion to quash “but only insofar as the accused may be placed in jeopardy or in danger of being convicted or acquitted of the crime of Subversion,” and dismissed the Information without prejudice to filing of an information for illegal possession. The trial court reasoned that the main offense in the Makati Information was subversion because the possession was alleged to be “in furtherance of” subversion, and treated subversion as a continuing offense; therefore the second prosecution would subject the accused to double jeopardy.
Court of Appeals Disposition
The People sought relief in the Court of Appeals by certiorari. The CA, however, denied the petition and upheld the RTC Makati decision, essentially reiterating the trial court’s view that the Information for illegal possession in furtherance of subversion was duplicitous or tantamount to charging subversion and thus exposed the accused to double jeopardy.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the P.D. No. 1866 Information for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion charged the same offense as the earlier R.A. No. 1700 subversion case such that double jeopardy attached and dismissal of the subsequent Information was warranted.
Statutory Construction of P.D. No. 1866
The Court analyzed Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866. The statute criminalizes (i) unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition, or possession of firearms/ammunition and prescribes penalties (reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua); and (ii) contains a separate paragraph providing that if the violation is “in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with” rebellion, insurrection or subversion the penalty is increased (historically up to death prior to later amendments). The Supreme Court concluded that the allegation that possession was “in furtherance of” subversion does not itself charge the separate crime of subversion; rather, it is a mode of commission or an aggravating/qualifying circumstance that increases the penalty for the single offense of illegal possession under P.D. No. 1866.
Distinction Between the Two Offenses and Double Jeopardy Analysis
The Court emphasized that R.A. No. 1700 (sections cited in the record) penalized membership and overt affiliation with a subversive organization (and, in a different provision, taking up arms), whereas P.D. No. 1866 penalizes illegal possession of firearms and ammunition as an independent offense. Because the two statutes punishing different acts are distinct, the Information under P.D. No. 1866 charged only illegal possession (qualified by an allegation of its relation to subversion), not the substantive offense of subversion itself. Under Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the protection against double jeopardy requires that the prior prosecution have satisfied requisites including a valid complaint or information, a competent court, that the defendant had pleaded, and that there was a conviction, acquittal or dismissal that terminated the case. The Court found that those requisites were not satisfied here: notably, the accused had not been arraigned nor had he pleaded in the first (subversion) case, and in any event the offenses charged are not the same for double jeopardy purposes.
Supreme Court Holding on the Double Jeopardy Claim
The Supreme Court held that the CA erred in sustaining quashal on double jeopardy grounds. The two charges can co-exist; illegal possession in furtherance of subversion under P.D. No. 1866 is a distinct offense from subversion under R.A. No. 1700. Consequently, the dismissal of the P.D. No. 1866 Information on the double jeopardy theory was unwarranted.
Effect of Subsequent Legislative Repeal and Amendments
Although the Court reversed the CA on the double jeopardy issue, it considered intervening statutory developments that materially affected both prosecutions: R.A. No. 7636 (enacted September 22, 1992) totally repealed R.A. No. 1700, abolishing the crime of subversion, and the repeal contained no saving clause. The Court applied the repeal retroactively where it benefitted the accused and concluded that the earlier subversion charge (Criminal Case No. 64079) had to be dismissed because the penal statute no longer existed. Separately, the Court noted that R.A. No. 8294 (June 6, 1997) amended P.D. No. 1866 by eliminating the provision that imposed the death penalty where the unlicensed fir
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-18034)
Facts and antecedent events
- Private respondent Antonio A. Tujan was charged with Subversion under Republic Act No. 1700 (the Anti-Subversion Law), as amended, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 45, docketed as Criminal Case No. 64079; the complaint was filed as early as 1983.
- A warrant for his arrest in the subversion case issued on July 29, 1983, remained unserved because he could not be found.
- On June 5, 1990, Antonio Tujan was arrested pursuant to the 1983 warrant; at the time of arrest an unlicensed .38 caliber special revolver (ARMSCOR PHILS., Serial No. 1026387) and six (6) rounds of live ammunition were found in his possession.
- 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 RTC of Makati, Branch 148, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1789; the Information alleged he was “being a member of a communist party of the Philippines, and its front organization” and possessed the unlicensed .38 special revolver and six live ammunitions “in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion,” without necessary license or permit.
- The Information in Criminal Case No. 1789 recommended no bail; the trial court approved the recommendation on June 19, 1990, and directed Tujan’s continued detention at MIG 15 of the ISAFP, Bago Bantay, Quezon City, while the case was pending.
- On June 26, 1990, through counsel, Tujan moved to invoke his right to a preliminary investigation under Section 7, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court and prayed arraignment be held in abeyance; on June 27, counsel withdrew that motion and sought leave to file a motion to quash the Information instead, which the court granted with a 20-day period.
- On July 16, 1990, Tujan filed a motion to quash Criminal Case No. 1789 on the ground that he “has been previously in jeopardy of being convicted of the offense charged” in Criminal Case No. 64079 (subversion), invoking Sections 3(h) and 7, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure; in support he argued that common crimes such as illegal possession of firearms and ammunition should be deemed absorbed in subversion and relied on Misolas v. Panga and Enrile v. Salazar (citing decisions and dissents as part of his argument).
- The prosecution opposed the motion to quash on grounds that: (a) Tujan had not been arraigned in the subversion case; and (b) the subversion charge under R.A. No. 1700 is a different offense from the illegal possession charge under P.D. No. 1866, so double jeopardy did not attach; the prosecution also contended that Misolas and Enrile were inapposite or misapplied.
- On October 12, 1990, the trial court granted the motion to quash “but only in so far as the accused may be placed in jeopardy or in danger of being convicted or acquitted of the crime of Subversion” and quashed the Information and dismissed the case “without prejudice to the filing of Illegal Possession of Firearm”; the trial court’s reasoning concluded that “the main offense the accused is being charged in this case is also Subversion considering that the alleged Illegal Possession of the Firearm and Ammunition is only in furtherance thereof,” and treated subversion as a continuing offense.
- The trial court’s order further stated that, because subversion is a continuing offense and the present prosecution was essentially a continuation of the prior subversion charge, double jeopardy attached; the prosecution was permitted to file another information within ten days or the accused would be released.
- The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied in an order dated December 28, 1990.
- The People petitioned the Court of Appeals by certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 24273). The Court of Appeals denied relief on May 27, 1991, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court and reiterating the trial court’s reasoning that the main offense was subversion qualified by illegal possession.
- The People sought review in the Supreme Court by certiorari under Rule 45; the Supreme Court’s decision was authored by Justice Martinez.
Issues presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court’s ruling that subversion is the “main offense” in the Information for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion (P.D. No. 1866), thereby requiring the Information to be quashed because of a prior pending subversion charge under R.A. No. 1700.
- More broadly, whether the accused was charged with the same offense in both cases such that the second charge should be dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy.
- Ancillary issue addressed by the Supreme Court: the effect of subsequent legislation (R.A. No. 7636 repealing R.A. No. 1700 and R.A. No. 8294 amending P.D. No. 1866) upon the pending charges and the accused’s detention.
Parties’ principal contentions
- Private respondent (defense):
- Argued motion to quash on double jeopardy grounds per Sections 3(h) and 7, Rule 117, asserting that illegal possession in furtherance of subversion is absorbed by the subversion charge and that the present prosecution is a “twin prosecution” of the earlier subversion case.
- Relied on jurisprudence including Misolas v. Panga and Enrile v. Salazar (and dissents) to support the claimed absorption.
- Petitioner (People/prosecution):
- Contended Tujan was not in jeopardy because he had not even been arraigned in the subversion case.
- Argued that Subversion (R.A. No. 1700) and Illegal Possession in Furtherance of Subversion (P.D. No. 1866) are distinct offenses under different statutes; therefore double jeopardy does not bar the second prosecution.
- Asserted that Misolas and Enrile were misapplied or distinguishable, and the “absorption rule” had no application because illegal possession is not a necessary means of committing subversion, nor is subversion necessary to constitute illegal possession.
Trial court disposition and reasoning
- Order dated October 12, 1990: granted motion to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 1789 insofar as the accused might be placed in jeopardy of being convicted of Subversion; quashed the Information and dismissed the case without prejudice to filing an information for Illegal Possession of Firearm.
- Key points of the trial court’s disquisition:
- Treated the “main offense” as Subversion because the illegal possession was alleged to be “in furtherance of” subversion.
- Considered subversion to be a continuing offense; thus, the later prosecution was a continuation of the earlier subversion case.
- Held that Rule 117 allows a motion to quash before arraignment (citing Section 1), and therefore double jeopardy could be invoked at that stage.
- Expressed that if possession was not a necessary means of committing subversion, the prosecution could file a separate information for illegal possession; nevertheless, the court quashed the existing Information to avoid placing the accused twice in jeopardy for subversion.
- Allowed the prosecution ten (10) days to file a new information or the court would order release.
Court of Appeals disposition
- The Court of Appeals (Sixteenth Division)