G.R. Nos. 137250-51; September 13, 2001
PABLO MARGAREJO, MARTIN PAGADUAN, BERNARD ZAMBALES, VICTOR DULAP, and LOLITO ALMOITE, petitioners, vs. HON. ADELARDO ESCOSES, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 51, RTC, Puerto Princesa City and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

In the early morning of May 12, 1998, during the election period, police officers manning a COMELEC checkpoint in Puerto Princesa City intercepted two vehicles. One was a Toyota Hi-Lux driven by a retired colonel, and the other was a Tamaraw FX driven by petitioner Martin Pagaduan. Upon inspection, several firearms and live ammunition were found in plain view inside the vehicles and carried by the petitioners and other passengers. When asked, the petitioners failed to produce any licenses or COMELEC authority for the firearms. Consequently, the firearms were confiscated.
Petitioners were subsequently charged under two separate Informations: one for Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Illegal Possession of Firearms), and another for Violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 3045 in relation to Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code (Possession of Firearms During Election Period). Before arraignment, petitioners filed motions to quash both Informations. They argued that the Information for P.D. 1866 was defective for failing to allege that “no other crime was committed,” which they claimed was an essential element under the amendatory law, R.A. 8294. For the election offense, they contended that the City Prosecutor had no authority to file the case since the COMELEC was conducting its own preliminary investigation for the same act.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners’ motions to quash the Informations.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. On the first charge, the Court clarified the legal effect of R.A. 8294, which amended P.D. 1866. The law now provides that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of a crime such as murder or homicide, there shall be no separate offense of illegal possession. The allegation that “no other crime was committed” is not an element of the crime of illegal possession of firearms; rather, it is a qualifying circumstance that determines the proper penalty. Its absence in the Information does not render the charge defective, as the facts alleged—possession of unlicensed firearms—plainly constitute an offense. The petitioners’ interpretation was erroneous.
Regarding the second charge for the election offense, the Court ruled that the authority to investigate and prosecute is concurrent between the COMELEC and other prosecuting officers under existing laws and rules. The fact that the COMELEC was conducting its own investigation did not divest the City Prosecutor of authority to file the Information. The trial court correctly held that any question of which body should proceed is a matter of jurisdiction that can be raised during trial, not a ground for a motion to quash. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioners’ factual challenges to the legality of the checkpoint and the arrest involved evidentiary matters best resolved in a full-blown trial, not in a special civil action for certiorari which is limited to reviewing jurisdictional errors.