GR 83341; (January, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 83341 ; January 30, 1990
ARNEL P. MISOLAS, petitioner, vs. HON. BENJAMIN V. PANGA, as Judge of RTC Branch 33, Cadlan Pili, Camarines Sur and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Arnel P. Misolas was arrested during a raid by Philippine Constabulary elements on a suspected “underground house” in Camarines Sur on August 8, 1987. The raiders found a .20 gauge Remington shotgun and ammunition in a bag under a pillow allegedly used by Misolas. An information was filed charging him with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Presidential Decree No. 1866, with the qualifying allegation that the firearm was used in furtherance of subversion, invoking the third paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 which imposes the death penalty when the illegal possession is in furtherance of rebellion, insurrection, or subversion. Misolas pleaded not guilty but later moved to quash the information, arguing that the facts charged did not constitute an offense and that his constitutional rights were violated during the arrest and seizure. The respondent judge denied the motion to quash and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the third paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, which penalizes illegal possession of firearms committed in furtherance of subversion with a higher penalty, is unconstitutional for violating substantive due process, particularly in light of the doctrine of absorption of common crimes in political offenses as established in People v. Hernandez.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the constitutionality of the challenged provision. The Court ruled that the doctrine in People v. Hernandez, which holds that common crimes are absorbed in the crime of rebellion, applies only to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. P.D. No. 1866 is a special law, and the offense of illegal possession of firearms thereunder is distinct and separate from the crime of subversion under Republic Act No. 1700 . The Court emphasized that the legislature has the power to define and penalize crimes, and the choice to enact a separate statute with a specific penalty for illegal possession of firearms used in furtherance of subversion is a valid exercise of that power. The fact that the same act may be prosecutable under two different statutes with varying penalties and degrees of difficulty for the prosecution does not render the law arbitrary or unconstitutional. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the respondent judge’s denial of the motion to quash, as the information sufficiently alleged the elements of the offense under P.D. No. 1866. The constitutional challenge based on the absorption doctrine was therefore unavailing.