You are on page 1of 4

Page 1 of 4 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. Nos. 83837-42 April 22, 1992 PEOPLE OF T E P !L!PP!

NES, petitioner, vs. ON. MA"!M!ANO C. ASUNC!ON, Pr#si$i%& '($&# o) *r+%,- 1.4, RTC, /(#0o% Ci12, PATERNA RU!3, NOL! G. NARCA, FR. N!C4 RU!3, L56!A R. NARCA, RO6OLFO CORTE3A +%$ TOMAS 6OM!NA6O, respondents. NOCON, J.: In a Petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the People raise the issue of hether the cri!e of ille"al possession of firear!s, a!!unition and e#plosives, punishable under P.$. %&66, is absorbed b' the cri!e of subversion, i.e., !e!bership in a subversive or"ani(ation, punishable under R.A. %)**, as a!ended. +he People filed this petition assailin" the Resolution dated Ma' ,, %-&& of respondent .ud"e Ma#i!iano C. Asuncion, "rantin" the !otion of private respondents to /uash the Infor!ation char"in" the! ith violation of P.$. %&66, as bein" void ab initio and the order dated .une &, %-&& den'in" petitioner0s !otion for reconsideration of said resolution. Private respondents Paterna Rui(, Noli Narca, 1r. Nic2 Rui(, 3'dia Narca, Rodolfo Corte(a, and +o!as $o!inado, ere char"ed ith 4ubversion under R.A. %)** before the Metropolitan +rial Court of 5ue(on Cit', Branch ,*, based on the follo in" infor!ation filed on 1ebruar' %*, %-&&6 +hat on or about the %st and 7nd da' of 1ebruar', %-&& in 5ue(on Cit', Metro Manila Philippines and ithin the 8urisdiction of this 9onorable Court, the above:na!ed accused, conspirin" to"ether, confederatin" ith and !utuall' helpin" one another b' overt acts ith the co!!on ob8ective to overthro the dul' constituted "overn!ent of the Republic of the Philippines, did, then and there, illfull' and unla full' and feloniousl' affiliate the!selves ith, beco!e and re!ain !e!bers of the Co!!unist Part' of the Philippines;National $e!ocratic 1ront and;or its successor or of an' subversive association in violation of said la . 1 <n 1ebruar' %7, %-&&, si# separate infor!ations for violation of P.$. %&66 =Ille"al Possession of 1irear!s> ere filed a"ainst the sa!e respondents before the Re"ional +rial Court of 5ue(on Cit', Branch %*,. 4aid Infor!ations in substantiall' identical lan"ua"e alle"e6 +hat on or about the =%st and 7nd da's> of 1ebruar' the accused ithout an' authorit' of la , did, then and there, illfull', unla full' and feloniousl' have in =his;her> possession and control and custod' one =cal .,5 pistol, ar!alite rifle, hand"ranade, fra"!entation "ranade, M:%, rifle>, ithout first securin" an' license;per!it fro! the proper authorit' and that said firear! is bein" used in support and furtherance of the cri!e of subversion or rebellion. 2 +he facts 3 as presented b' the prosecution reveal that so!eti!e in 1ebruar' %-&&, ele!ents of the Intelli"ence 4ervice of the Ar!ed 1orces of the Philippines apprehended the private respondents in separate operations. ?arious a!!unitions, firear!s, and e#plosives ere found in their possession, hile subse/uent searches in their respective hide:outs resulted in the confiscation of several subversive !aterials, includin" docu!ents sho in" that the' are ran2in" !e!bers of the Co!!unist Part' of the Philippines;Ne People0s Ar!', or are !ere !e!bers. Private respondents, in their !otion to /uash, 4 ar"ued that the filin" of t o =7> separate infor!ations for each of the accused violates the rule on double 8eopard', and that there bein" onl' a sin"le cri!inal intent, the other offense of ille"al possession of firear!s, a!!unition and e#plosives should be absorbed in the char"e of violation of R.A. %)**, follo in" the doctrine in People v. Hernandez. 7 +he respondent .ud"e, in his /uestioned resolution, a"reed ith this contention and held6

A. <ne !a' in fact be "uilt' of subversion b' authorin" subversive !aterials. then it loses its distinction fro! rebellion. as alle"ed in the infor!ation. %)** as a!ended>. . Risin" publicl' and ta2in" ar!s a"ainst the @overn!ent is the ver' ele!ent of the cri!e of rebellion. for violation of co!!on cri!es. is a cri!e a"ainst national securit'. Poncevic Ceballos. is the ver' ele!ent of force.A. Hernandez. li2e treason. 5%5>. the' ant to adopt b' analo"' e#istin" 8urisprudence on rebellion to subversion on the theor' that both cri!es are political offenses intended to destabili(e and overthro the "overn!ent ith the use of force. Panga 18 i!pliedl' ruled that if an accused is si!ultaneousl' char"ed ith violation of P. in the case of !uscayno vs.$. subversion and other ille"al !eans. hence.7and Enrile v. e#plosives and a!!unition or the possession thereof. or other ille"al !eans in the cri!e of subversion. $eadl' eapons are needed and necessar' to "enerate the 2ind of force and violence to acco!plish the purpose of subversion. As pointed out b' Att'. of the Revised Penal CodeC hile the Anti:4ubversion Act =Republic Act No. 13 <n the other hand. 14 +he first Ahereas clause of R. but !a' parta2e of other for!s as ell. there !ust be a public uprisin" and ta2in" of ar!s a"ainst the @overn!entC hereas. "ilitary #ommissions. %)** as enacted to outla the Co!!unist Part' of the Philippines =CPP>. %&66 and subversion. +his is a reco"nition that subversive acts do not onl' constitute force and violence =contra to the ar"u!ents of private respondents>. 1.A. 11 the Court cate"oricall' distin"uished subversion fro! rebellion. Liwanag. +he respondents relied on the opinion of this Court hen it said6 . counsel for the accused. 9o ever. Ae cannot a"ree. as it is !ore co!!onl' called. not onl' b' force and violence but also by deceit. other si!ilar associations and its successors because their e#istence and activities constitute a clear. the possession of firear!s. or subversion. the for!er cri!e bein" !erel' an ele!ent of the latter cri!e. If Ae are to espouse the theor' of the respondents that force and violence are the ver' essence of subversion. .Phil. 12 this Court said that subversion. In rebellion.. 9 +he trial court ent alon" ith respondents hen it stated6 . violence or other ille"al !eans. 4o that the cri!e of alle"ed possession of firear!s in furtherance of rebellion or. +he possession of said ite!s b' all the accused. and even in the !ore recent cases of Enrile v. =E!phasis supplied> 1urther!ore. here force and violence is neither necessar' or indispensable. a!!unition and e#plosives to hich all the accused are char"ed before this Court is a constitutive in"redient of the cri!e of subversion and. & the issue resolved is that the cri!e of rebellion cannot be co!ple#ed ith. absorbed b' the sa!e and cannot be punished separatel'. %)**. %)**> punishes a iliation or membership in a subversive or"ani(ation as defined therein. is a cri!e distinct fro! that of actual rebellion. and held6 ?iolation of Republic Act No.Page 2 of 4 After evaluatin" the "rounds and the ar"u!ents in support of the sa!e. mere membership in a subversive association is sufficient and the ta2in" up of ar!s b' a !e!ber of a subversive or"ani(ation a"ainst the @overn!ent is but a circu!stance hich raises the penalt' to be i!posed upon the offender. 8 =E!phasis supplied> It should be recalled that in People v. violence. the Court is of the opinion that the !otion to /uash. +he cri!e of rebellion is co!!itted b' rising publicly and taking up arms against the Government for an' of the purposes specified in Article %B. present and "rave dan"er to national securit'. as pra'ed for should be @RAN+E$. supra. nor !a' a separate infor!ation be filed. Private respondents do not dispute the fact that rebellion is distinct fro! subversion. hile rebellion is a cri!e a"ainst public order. Hernandez =-. %)** states that the CPP is an or"ani(ed conspirac' to overthro the @overn!ent. In People v. the doctrine of absorption of co!!on cri!es as applied in rebellion ould have found application therein. since force and violence are alread' necessar' in"redients of the sa!e. Salazar. Amin. !a' be done ith the use of violence. Private respondents contended 17 that the Court in "isolas v. R. in subversion. Appl'in" by analogy the doctrine laid do n in the case of People v. violence and other ille"al !eans !entioned in the la =R. the ele!ents of force. subversion cannot be separated fro! the char"e of subversion.

7%. the Court a"rees ith the observation of the herein accused that the filin" of t o separate infor!ations a"ainst each of the accused constitute a violation of their constitutional ri"ht of not bein" t ice put in 8eopard' of punish!ent for the sa!e offense here it can be sho n that the offenses in /uestion arise fro! a sin"le cri!inal intent.$. conviction or ac/uittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the sa!e act. the trial court in its resolution articulated. %&66 hich provides for the hi"her penalt'. ill not necessaril' call for the invalidation of the third para"raph of 4ection % of P. If an act is punished b' a la and an ordinance. accordin" to a lon" line of cases. . %&66. +he Court opined that the dictu! in the Hernandez case is not applicable in that case. %&66 than to establish that he had 2no in"l'. upon valid co!plaint or infor!ation or other for!al char"e sufficient in for! and substance to sustain a conviction.ud"e. it !a' pose "rave difficult' on an accused in instances si!ilar to those that obtain in the present case. or the case a"ainst hi! has been dis!issed or other ise ter!inated ithout his e#press consent. +hus. and after the defendant has pleaded to the char"e. .A. there can be no double 8eopard'. %&66 can be prosecuted independentl' of R.$. G+he practical result of this !a' be harsh or. it is easier to prove that a person has unla full' possessed a firear! and.$. as conviction under the latter Gre/uires that !e!bership !ust be 2no in" or active. 5B> +he case of People v. the conviction or ac/uittal of the accused or the dis!issal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense char"ed. %)**. or =B> in 8eopard' of bein" convicted of the offense char"ed. $ouble 8eopard' can be invo2ed onl' if one offense is inseparable fro! another and proceeds fro! the sa!e act. Rule %%). 17 +his is ho ever a !ere obiter. NEI+9ER I4 9E BEIN@ 4EPARA+E3F C9AR@E$ 1<R 4EB?ER4I<N AN$ 1<R I33E@A3 P<44E44I<N <1 1IREARM4. =People v. but the isdo! of the le"islature in the la ful e#ercise of its po er to enact la s is so!ethin" that the Court cannot in/uire into . -* Phil. in order that a defendant !a' successfull' alle"e for!er 8eopard'. +hus. the' cannot be sub8ect to separate prosecutions. considerin" that the le"islature dee!ed it fit to provide for t o distinct offenses6 =%> ille"al possession of firear!s /ualified b' subversion =P.A. in the present case. that is. ith specific intent to further the ille"al ob8ectives of the Part'G =/uotin" fro! People v. III. %)**. Elkanish.or a!!unition under P. Geronimo and $odriguez find no application in this case. the rulin"s of the Court in Hernandez. 9E I4 N<+ BEIN@ C9AR@E$ AI+9 +9E C<MP3ED CRIME <1 4EB?ER4I<N AI+9 I33E@A3 P<44E44I<N <1 1IREARM4. petitioner is bein" char"ed specificall' for the /ualified offense of ille"al possession of firear!s and a!!unition under P$ %&66. even if considered hi"hl' advanta"eous to the prosecution and onerous to the accused. beca!e or re!ained a !e!ber of the Co!!unist Part' of the Philippines and. 4ection ) of the Rules of Court provides as follo s6 Ahen the accused has been convicted or ac/uitted. supra>. and after the accused had pleaded to the char"e. El2anish. %&66> and =7> subversion /ualified b' the ta2in" up of ar!s a"ainst the @overn!ent =R. .$. 9o ever. 4ection 7% of the present Constitution provides6 4ec.A. relied upon b' the 9onorable . No person shall be t ice put in 8eopard' of punish!ent for the sa!e offense. that the for!er case a"ainst hi! for the sa!e offense has been dis!issed or other ise ter!inated ithout his e#press consent. in hich case. it is necessar' that he had previously been =%> convicted or =7> ac/uitted. 2.G 18 +he Court further said6 Endeniabl'.Page 3 of 4 . In the above case. . 4ince Ae have resolved that P.or its successor or of an' subversive or"ani(ation under R. upon a valid co!plaint or infor!ation. that the sa!e act !a' be penali(ed under t o different statutes ith different penalties. is not in point ith the present case. . thus6 <n the /uestion of double 8eopard'. b' a court of co!petent 8urisdiction. the Court upheld the validit' of the char"e under the third para"raph of 4ection % of P. b' a court of co!petent 8urisdiction. %)**>. Art. I!ple!entin" the constitutional provision. 1errer. or for an' offense hich necessaril' includes or is necessaril' included in the offense char"ed in the for!er co!plaint or infor!ation. 19 <n the issue of hether the filin" of the subse/uent infor!ation constitutes double 8eopard'. illfull' and b' overt acts affiliated hi!self ith. or for an' atte!pt to co!!it the sa!e or frustration thereof.$.

3et this case be re!anded to the lo er court for further proceedin"s and trial. . %-&& /uashin" the infor!ations for violation of P$ %&66 is hereb' reversed and the infor!ations reinstated. Ae find this petition !eritorious and the resolution of the trial court dated Ma' .Page 4 of 4 Pre!ises considered. Cost de o icio.. 4< <R$ERE$.