Tangan v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Eladio C. Tangan was charged with murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm in Criminal Case No. 17587. Subsequently, upon petitioner's request for a new investigation, the charge was amended to homicide with the use of a licensed firearm. Procedural History: Thereafter, a new information was filed in Criminal Case No. 19350, charging petitioner with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition used in the commission of homicide, under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866. Petitioner filed a motion to quash this information, citing grounds of charging more than one offense, extinguished criminal liability, and double jeopardy. The respondent judge denied the motion to quash, and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction seeking the annulment of the respondent judge's resolutions denying his motion to quash and motion for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of the information in Criminal Case No. 19350 for illegal possession of firearms used in homicide subjects the petitioner to double jeopardy. Whether the information in Criminal Case No. 19350 charges more than one offense. Whether the petitioner's criminal liability for the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 19350 has been extinguished.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The restraining order issued by the Court is permanently lifted. Criminal Cases Nos. 17850 and 19350 are consolidated and a joint hearing thereon is ordered conducted. The decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of double jeopardy: The Court held that for double jeopardy to attach, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Legal jeopardy attaches only upon a valid indictment, before a competent court, after arraignment, with a valid plea having been entered, and the case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused. In this case, the first jeopardy had not yet attached because the petitioner had only entered a plea of "not guilty" to the amended charge of homicide, and no conviction or acquittal had yet occurred. The mere filing of two informations does not constitute double jeopardy if the primary basis of the defense, which is conviction, acquittal, or termination of the case without consent, has not been met. The Court distinguished this case from others where jeopardy had already attached, such as Lazaro v. People, People v. Francisco Diaz, and Yap v. Lutero, where the accused had already been convicted or acquitted in the first case. On the issue of charging more than one offense: The Court found no basis for the claim that the information in Criminal Case No. 19350 charges more than one offense. Citing Lazaro v. People, the Court explained that when a firearm is used in the commission of a crime, the charge for illegal possession of that firearm is qualified by its use. Therefore, the allegation that the unlicensed firearm was used in the commission of homicide does not charge a separate offense of homicide but merely describes the mode or manner by which the violation of Section 1 of P.D. 1866 was committed. This qualification subjects the petitioner to the death penalty, which has since been reduced to reclusion perpetua under the new Constitution. On the issue of extinguished criminal liability: The Court found no basis for the petitioner's claim that his criminal liability has been extinguished. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code enumerates the causes for the total extinction of criminal liability, none of which were present in this case. The fact that the petitioner entered a plea of not guilty to the homicide charge is immaterial as it does not operate to extinguish his criminal liability for the illegal possession of firearms. The Court noted that since both cases were filed in the same branch of the same court, a joint hearing could be conducted to ensure speedy justice and afford the State the opportunity to prosecute and convict.
Main Doctrine
The filing of two separate informations for homicide and for illegal possession of firearms used in the commission of homicide does not constitute double jeopardy if the first jeopardy has not yet attached, meaning there has been no valid indictment, arraignment, and plea in the first case.