PEOPLE v. PIMENTEL (supra) [288 SCRA 542 (1998), G.R. No. 100210] Ponente: Martinez, J.

Date: April 1, 1998 Topic/Subject Matter: Article 22 Retroactivity, Effect of Repeal of Penal Laws Facts: In 1983, private respondent Antonio Tujan was charged with Subversion under R.A. 1700 (the Anti-Subversion Law) as amended before the RTC of Manila, and a warrant of arrest was issued on July 29, 1983, but was not carried out due to his disappearance. After seven years, on June 5, 1990, Antonio Tujan was arrested on the basis of the warrant of arrest in the subversion case, and was likewise found to possess an unlicensed .38 caliber special revolver and six rounds of live ammunition. Because of this, Tujan was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion under PD No. 1866 before the RTC in Makati. Contention of the People: Antonio Tujan filed the motion to quash the charge under PD No. 1866 on the ground that he has been previously in jeopardy of being convicted for Subversion, based on Sections 3(H) and 7, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, Tujan contends that common crimes such as illegal possession of firearms and ammunition should be absorbed in subversion. The present case is the twin prosecution of the earlier subversion case, and therefore he is entitled to invoke the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Contention of the State: Tujan does not stand in jeopardy of being convicted a second time because: (a) he has not even been arraigned in the subversion case, and (b) the previous offense charged against him is for Subversion, punishable under RA 1700, while the present case is for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion, punishable under PD 1866, a different law. Issue/s to be Solved: WON charge under PD 1866 be quashed on ground of double jeopardy in view of the previous charge under RA 1700. Ruling of the Supreme Court: While the SC holds that both the subversion charge under RA 1700, as amended, and the one for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in furtherance of subversion under PD 1866, as amended, can co-exist, the subsequent enactment of of RA 7636 on Sept. 22, 1992, totally repealing RA 1700, as amended, has substantially changed the complexion of the present case, inasmuch as the said repealing law being favorable to the accused-private respondent, who is not a habitual delinquent, should be given retroactive effect. With the enactment of RA 7636, the charge of subversion against the accused-private respondent has no more legal basis, and should be dismissed. It would be illogical for the trial courts to try and sentence the accused-private respondent for an offense that no longer exists. Subversion charge against Tujan was dismissed, illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in furtherance of subversion against the same accused is deemed amended. Accused was ordered to be released immediately from detention, since he was already detained for 7 years, whereas the amended charge has a penalty of 4 years, 2 mos. and 1 day to six years.
CHRISTINE S. DELA CRUZ LLB-1 SECTION C