Pp v Pimentel

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However, RA 1700 was totally repealed by RA 7636 which gave a retroactive effect favorable to the accused.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.