PEOPLE

V PIMENTEL

CRIMINAL LAW 1
CHARACTERISTICS OF A CRIMINAL LAW
Prospective

GR 100210
April 1 1998

BATCH 2020 | 1B
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
REVISED PENAL CODE

imposed.
If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of, or

Art. 1. Time when Act takes effect. This Code shall

take effect on the first day of January, nineteen
hundred and thirty-two.

incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion,

insurrection or subversion, the penalty of death shall be
imposed.

Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. No felony
shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by
law prior to its commission.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum

period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon
the owner, president, manager, director or other
responsible officer of any public or private firm,

Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal Laws

company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or

shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the

knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such

persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual

firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any

criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62

person or persons found guilty of violating the

of this Code, although at the time of the publication of

provisions

such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and

The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon

the convict is serving the same.

any person who shall carry any licensed firearm

CIVIL CODE
contrary is provided.

Sec 1 of P.D. No. 1866. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales,

Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Firearms or
Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to be
the

preceding

paragraphs.

therefor.

THE FACTS
OTHERS

in

the

outside his residence without legal authority

Art. 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the

Used

of

Manufacture

of

Firearms

or

Ammunition.The penalty of reclusion temporal in

its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any
firearms, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery,
tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the
manufacture of any firearm or ammunition.
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of
an unlicensed firearms, the penalty of death shall be

The case is a petition for review on certiorari of a

decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the ruling of
the Regional Trial court that Subversion is the main
offense in a charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm
and Ammunition in Furtherance of Subversion
under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, and therefore
should be quashed in view of a previous charge of
Subversion under R.A. No. 1700, as amended by P.D.
No. 885, against the same accused pending in another
court.
In 1983, private respondent Antonio Tujan was
charged with Subversion under R.A. 1700, as
amended, before the RTC of Manila, NCR. A warrant
for his arrest was issued on July 29, 1983, but it
remained unserved as he could not be found. After
almost 7 years, on June 5, 1990, Tujan was arrested on
the basis of the warrant of arrest in the
aforementioned subversion case. During his arrest, an
unlicensed .38 caliber special revolver and 6 rounds of

mennc | 2016

live ammunition were found in his possession and as

a result, Tujan was charged with Illegal Possession of
Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of
Subversion under P.D. 1866, as amended, before the
RTC of Makati. On July 16, 1990, Tujan filed a motion
to quash the Information in the second case on the
ground that he has been previously in jeopardy of
being convicted of the offense charged
1.

THE ISSUES
Whether or not the accused is charged with the
same offense in both cases, which would justify the
dismissal of the second charge on the ground of
double jeopardy
THE COURTS RULING

Court ruled to reverse and set aside the assailed

decision of the Court of Appeals; to dismiss the
subversion
charge
against
accused-private
respondent Tujan; and amend the Information for
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in
furtherance of subversion to Simple Illegal Possession
of Firearm and Ammunition.
The Court held that Tujan was not placed in double
jeopardy because 1) the private respondent has not
been arraigned yet and 2) the two criminal charges
against him are not of the same offense; and that Tujan
could be charged under P.D. No. 1866 or R.A. No. 1700.
HOWEVER, during the duration of the case, R.A. 7636
was enacted, totally repealing R.A. 1700. Pursuant to
Art. 22 of the Revised Penal Code, R.A. 7636 should
apply retroactively for the benefit of the accused
respondent. With the enactment of RA 7636, the
charge of subversion against the accused-private
respondent has no more legal basis and should be
dismissed; the other charge of illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition since, qualified by
subversion, is amended to simple illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition since subversion is no longer
a crime.

mennc | 2016