Case Summary (G.R. No. 83837- 42)
Applicable Law
The applicable laws are Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866 regarding illegal possession of firearms, ammunition, and explosives, and Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1700 concerning subversion. The legal question pertains to whether the crimes of illegal possession under P.D. 1866 are absorbed by the crime of subversion under R.A. 1700.
Background Facts
On February 10, 1988, the private respondents were charged with subversion in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. Shortly thereafter, on February 12, the prosecution filed separate informations against them for illegal possession of firearms under P.D. 1866. The apprehension of the private respondents occurred due to intelligence operations that uncovered various firearms and subversive materials. The private respondents contended that the illegal possession charges should be quashed, claiming it violated the principle of double jeopardy.
Legal Arguments and Court's Reasoning
In their motion to quash, the private respondents argued that charging them under two separate informations for what is essentially a single criminal intent constituted double jeopardy. The respondent judge agreed, positing that possession of firearms serves as a constitutive ingredient of the crime of subversion and thus should be absorbed under the latter. This reasoning drew an analogy to existing case law, specifically the precedent set in People v. Hernandez, where it was established that acts necessary to commit rebellion cannot be charged separately as common crimes.
In contrast, the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court's conclusion and highlighted the distinct nature of the offenses. The court emphasized that while the elements of force and violence are indeed inherent in the crime of rebellion, subversion is distinguished by mere membership in a subversive organization, which does not require a public uprising.
Distinction Between Subversion and Related Crimes
The Supreme Court clarified that subversion, as defined by R.A. 1700, is a crime against national security, whereas rebellion is categorized as a crime against public order. Key to this distinction is the fact that membership alone in a subversive organization suffices for conviction under R.A. 1700, differing from the requisite public uprising and armed insurrection inherent in rebellion.
The court also noted that legislative intent under R.A. 1700 reflects a broader understanding of what constitutes subversive acts, acknowledging that these actions may or may not involve physical violence.
Analysis of Double Jeopardy Claim
Regarding the double jeopardy argument, the court reaffirmed that two separate informations may be valid if the crimes charged under each statute are distinct; hence, the e
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 83837- 42)
Case Background
- The case arises from a Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
- The petitioner, the People of the Philippines, contests the Resolution dated May 4, 1988, by respondent Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion.
- The resolution granted the motion to quash the Information charging private respondents with illegal possession of firearms, ammunition, and explosives under P.D. 1866, claiming it was void ab initio.
- The petitioner also challenges the subsequent order dated June 8, 1988, which denied the motion for reconsideration of the earlier resolution.
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: People of the Philippines
- Respondents:
- Hon. Maximiano C. Asuncion, Presiding Judge of Branch 104, RTC, Quezon City
- Paterna Ruiz
- Noli G. Narca
- Fr. Nick Ruiz
- Lydia R. Narca
- Rodolfo Corteza
- Tomas Dominado
Charges Filed
- Private respondents were charged with subversion under R.A. 1700, stemming from an Information filed on February 10, 1988.
- Charge details included conspiring to overthrow the government by affiliating with the Communist Party of the Philippines/National Democratic Front.
- Six separate informations for violation of P.D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms) were also filed against the same respondents.
Facts of the Case
- In February 1988, elements of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines captured private respondents during operations.
- Various firearms, explosives, and subversive materials were confiscated, indicating their involvement with the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army.
- The respondents fi