GR L 73963; (November, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-73963 November 5, 1987
ELADIO C. TANGAN, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HONORABLE RICARDO J. FRANCISCO, JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION, MAKATI, METRO MANILA, BRANCH CXXXVI, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Eladio C. Tangan was initially charged with Murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm. Following a reinvestigation, the charge was amended to Homicide with the use of a licensed firearm, to which he pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, a separate information was filed against him for Violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition), alleging he possessed an unlicensed Smith & Wesson revolver and ammunition which he used in committing the homicide. Tangan moved to quash this second information, arguing it charged more than one offense, that his criminal liability was extinguished, and that it placed him in double jeopardy for the same act.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the information for Illegal Possession of Firearms under P.D. 1866, which includes the allegation that the firearm was used to commit homicide, charges multiple offenses and violates the rule against double jeopardy.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court’s denial of the motion to quash. The legal logic is clear: the information charges only one offense—qualified illegal possession of a firearm. The allegation that the unlicensed firearm was “used in the commission of the crime of homicide” does not charge a separate offense of homicide. Instead, it merely describes the specific mode or manner by which the violation of P.D. 1866 was committed, which qualifies the offense and prescribes a heavier penalty. Citing People v. Lazaro, the Court ruled that the homicide is an essential ingredient of the qualified offense of illegal possession, not a distinct charge. Consequently, the information does not violate the rule against duplicity of offenses.
Furthermore, double jeopardy does not apply. For double jeopardy to attach, the second prosecution must be for the same offense. Here, Criminal Case No. 17587 is for Homicide under the Revised Penal Code, while Criminal Case No. 19350 is for a violation of a special law (P.D. 1866). These are two different offenses arising from the same act, which is permissible. The Court also found no merit in the claim of extinguished criminal liability, as none of the grounds under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code were present. To ensure a speedy trial, the Court ordered the consolidation and joint hearing of the two criminal cases.