Pp v Pimentel

288 SCRA 542

April 1, 1998

Facts:

In 1983, private respondent Antonio Tujan was charged with Subversion under Republic Act No. 1700.
As a result, a warrant of arrest was issued on July 29, 1983, but it remained unserved as he could not be
found.

Almost seven years thereafter, the accused was arrested on the of the warrant of arrest in subversion.
When he was arrested, an unlicensed .38 caliber special revolver and six rounds of ammunition were
found in his possession.

On June 14, 1990, Antonio Tujan was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in
Furtherance of Subversion under Presidential Decree No. 1866.

Antonio Tujan filed the motion to quash the second case as he has been previously in jeopardy on being
convicted on the grounds of subversion.

Issue:

Whether or not the charge under PD 1866 be quashed on grounds of double jeopardy in view of the
previous charge under RA 1700.

Held:
No

The accused was not put in double jeopardy since they are different offenses. Subversion is charged
under RA 1700, while the case on Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of
Subversion is punishable under PD 1866. Thus, both charges can co-exist.

However, RA 1700 was totally repealed by RA 7636 which gave a retroactive effect favorable to the
accused. The charge of subversion against the accused has no more legal basis and should be dismissed.
On the other hand, PD 1866 was amended by RA No. 8294 reducing the penalty into Simple Illegal
Possession of Firearm. The said penalty is now bailable under RA 8294.

People vs. Pimentel, 288 SCRA 542 (1998)

FACTS: 1983. Tujan charged with subversions under RA 1700 with warrant of arrest issued. On June 5,
1990, Tujan was arrested and caught with .38 caliber revolver. On June 14, 1990, he was charged with
illegal possession of firearms and ammunition in furtherance of subversion (PD 1866) Tujan filed motion
to quash invoking protection versus double jeopardy (Art. III, Constitution; Misolas v. Panga; and Enrile
v. Salazar: alleged possession absorbed in subversion. It was granted by the trial court and the court of
appeals.

ISSUE: WON charge under PD 1866 be quashed on ground of double jeopardy in view of the previous
charge under RA 1700.

Ratio: No.

1. Article III of the Constitution and Rule 117 Revised Rules of Court state that for double jeopardy to
occur, acquittal, conviction or dismissal in previous cases must have occurred. In this case, first case was
not even arraigned yet.

2. They are different offenses. R.A. 1700 punishes subversion while PD 1866 punishes illegal possession
of firearms.
However, since RA 7636 totally repealed subversion or RA 1700, and since this is favorable to the
accused, we can no longer charge accused with RA 1700 even if they didn’t raise this issue. PD 1866
should be amended to mere illegal possession of firearms without furtherance of subversion

Held: RTC and CA reversed and set aside. RA 1700 charge dismissed. PD 1866 change amended. Release
Tujan.