G.R. No. 83837 -42 April 22, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, Presiding Judge of Branch 104, RTC, Quezon City, PATERNA RUIZ, NOLI G. NARCA, FR. NICK RUIZ, LYDIA R. NARCA, RODOLFO CORTEZA and TOMAS DOMINADO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents were charged with Subversion under R.A. 1700 (Anti-Subversion Act) before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. The information alleged they willfully affiliated themselves with the Communist Party of the Philippines/National Democratic Front. Subsequently, six separate informations for violation of P.D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms) were filed against the same respondents before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104. The informations alleged they possessed firearms, ammunition, and explosives without authority and that these were used in furtherance of subversion. The prosecution’s facts revealed that private respondents were apprehended, and firearms, ammunition, explosives, and subversive materials were found in their possession. Private respondents moved to quash the P.D. 1866 informations, arguing that filing two separate informations violated double jeopardy and that the offense of illegal possession of firearms should be absorbed by the charge of subversion, applying by analogy the doctrine in People v. Hernandez. The respondent Judge granted the motion to quash, ruling that possession of firearms is a constitutive ingredient of subversion and is absorbed by it.

ISSUE

Whether the crime of illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives, punishable under P.D. 1866, is absorbed by the crime of subversion, punishable under R.A. 1700, as amended.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s resolution and reinstated the informations for violation of P.D. 1866. The Court held that subversion is distinct from rebellion. Rebellion requires a public uprising and taking of arms against the Government, while subversion punishes mere membership in a subversive association; the taking up of arms is merely a circumstance that raises the penalty. Subversion, like treason, is a crime against national security, while rebellion is a crime against public order. The Court emphasized that R.A. 1700 recognizes that subversive acts may be committed not only by force and violence but also by deceit, subversion, and other illegal means. Therefore, force and violence are not the very essence of subversion, and the doctrine of absorption applicable to rebellion does not apply. The Court further ruled that since P.D. 1866 can be prosecuted independently of R.A. 1700, the filing of separate informations does not constitute double jeopardy. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.