[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
849 views1 page

Case No. 29 People v. Pimentel 288 SCRA 542 (1998)

1) Antonio Tujan was charged with subversion in 1983 but evaded arrest until 1990 when he was found with an unlicensed firearm. He was then charged with illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of subversion. 2) Tujan argued the second charge violated double jeopardy protections since the crimes should be absorbed by the first subversion charge. 3) The court ruled double jeopardy did not apply because the first case had not proceeded to acquittal, conviction, or dismissal. Additionally, the crimes addressed different offenses - one for subversion and one for illegal firearm possession. 4) However, since the law for subversion was repealed, that initial charge

Uploaded by

William Christian Dela Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
849 views1 page

Case No. 29 People v. Pimentel 288 SCRA 542 (1998)

1) Antonio Tujan was charged with subversion in 1983 but evaded arrest until 1990 when he was found with an unlicensed firearm. He was then charged with illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of subversion. 2) Tujan argued the second charge violated double jeopardy protections since the crimes should be absorbed by the first subversion charge. 3) The court ruled double jeopardy did not apply because the first case had not proceeded to acquittal, conviction, or dismissal. Additionally, the crimes addressed different offenses - one for subversion and one for illegal firearm possession. 4) However, since the law for subversion was repealed, that initial charge

Uploaded by

William Christian Dela Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege Case No.

29

Source: Art. 3 of the 1987 Constitution

Double Jeopardy

People v. Pimentel

288 SCRA 542 (1998)

FACTS:

In 1983, private respondent Antonio Tujan was charged with subversion under RA
1700 (Anti-Subversion Law). As a consequence thereof, a warrant for his arrest has
been issued on July 29,1983 but it could not be served because he could not be
found.
7 years later (June 5, 1990), he was arrested on the basis of his warrant of arrest
of the subversion case. When arrested, an unlicensed .38 caliber special revolver and
six rounds of live ammunition were found on his possession.
On June 14, 1990, he was charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition
in furtherance of subversion under Presidential Degree 1866. On July 16 1990, Tujan
filed the motion to quash the second criminal case contending that common crimes
such as illegal possession of firearms and ammunition should actually be deemed
absorbed by the crime subversion. He is entitled to invoke constitutional protection
against double jeopardy.

ISSUE: Whether or not Presidential Degree 1866 be quashed on ground of double


jeopardy

RULING: No

RATIO DECIDENDI: The 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.
Also the cases are not of the same issue. 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.

You might also like