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

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

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

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