View full case

PEOPLE v. OSCAR B. PIMENTEL

FACTS:

The case involves an appeal regarding the ruling of the Court of Appeals affirming the order of the Regional Trial Court. The issue at hand is whether the charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion should be quashed on the ground of double jeopardy because the accused is already charged with Subversion in another court. The factual background of the case reveals that the accused, Antonio Tujan, was previously charged with Subversion under Republic Act No. 1700 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. However, the warrant for his arrest remained unserved for almost seven years. In June 1990, Tujan was finally arrested on the basis of the warrant and found to be in possession of an unlicensed .38 caliber special revolver and live ammunition. As a result, he was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion under Presidential Decree No. 1866. Tujan filed a motion to quash the Information on the grounds of double jeopardy, arguing that illegal possession of firearms should be deemed absorbed in the charge of subversion. The prosecution opposed the motion, stating that Tujan has not been arraigned in the subversion case and that the two charges are for different offenses. The trial court granted Tujan's motion to quash, which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The petitioner filed a motion to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 1789, which was granted by the trial court. The court quashed the information and dismissed the case without prejudice to the filing of Illegal Possession of Firearm. The trial court based its decision on the argument that the main offense the accused is being charged with in this case is also Subversion, and the alleged Illegal Possession of the Firearm and Ammunition is only in furtherance of Subversion. The trial court also held that the offense of Subversion is a continuing offense, and since the accused has been previously charged with Subversion before another court, double jeopardy will attach to the accusation of Subversion. The prosecution argued that possession of firearms and ammunition is not a necessary means of committing the offense of Subversion, but the trial court disagreed. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the trial court. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the appellate court upheld the decision of the trial court. The petitioner now seeks review by the Supreme Court, claiming that the decision of the Court of Appeals is not in accordance with the law and applicable jurisprudence, and that it was deprived of due process to prosecute and prove its case against the private respondent in Criminal Case No. 1789.

ISSUES:

  1. Is Subversion the "main offense" in a charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion under P.D. No. 1866, as amended?

  2. Is the accused charged with the same offense in both the subversion case and the case for illegal possession of firearms, thus justifying the dismissal of the second charge on the ground of double jeopardy?

RULING:

  1. On the Main Offense: The Supreme Court ruled that the charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion under P.D. No. 1866 is distinct from a charge of Subversion under R.A. No. 1700. The illegal possession of firearm and ammunition is the main offense, while its being in furtherance of subversion is merely a qualifying circumstance that could increase the penalty.

  2. On Double Jeopardy: The Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy does not apply in this case. The charges under P.D. No. 1866 and R.A. No. 1700 concern different offenses, and the accused has not yet been arraigned in the subversion case, thus not having been placed in jeopardy for it.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Distinct Offenses: Illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under P.D. No. 1866 is a separate and distinct offense from subversion under R.A. No. 1700.

  • Double Jeopardy: Double jeopardy requires a valid complaint, a competent court, the defendant having pleaded to the charge, and the defendant being acquitted, convicted, or the case dismissed without the defendant’s consent.

  • Legislative Repeal Effects: The repeal of a penal law results in the cessation of the criminality of acts penalized by the repealed law and affects ongoing and future prosecutions under the repealed law.

  • Amendment to Charges: When laws are repealed or amended in a way beneficial to the accused, these changes must be applied retroactively, leading to amendments of charges to conform to the current law.