THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. ELIAS RODRIGUEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

On October 30, 1956, Elias Rodriguez was charged with illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition before the Justice of the Peace
Court of Calamba, Laguna. The accused filed a motion to quash on the
ground that the crime with which he is charged is already alleged as a
component element or ingredient of the crime of rebellion with which he
was charged in Criminal Case No. 16990 of the Court of First Instance
of Manila. Upon denial of his motion to quash, the justice of the peace
court proceeded with the preliminary investigation wherein the accused
tried to prove that the firearm and ammunition in question did not
belong to him for they were merely left with him by another person who
had disappeared, his failure to report the same to the authorities
being merely due to his work. He disclaimed animus posidendi.
The justice of the peace court, having found probable cause in the
commission of the crime, ordered the transmittal of the record to the
Court of First Instance of Laguna for trial on the merits.

When the case was called for arraignment, the accused again filed a
motion to quash alleging the defense of double jeopardy arising from
the fact that an essential ingredient of a crime with which he was
already charged is made the basis of a separate complaint in the
present case. To the motion to quash, the fiscal filed an opposition
alleging that the plea of double jeopardy does not lie because there is
no identity of offenses between the crime charged in the present case
and the one allegedly charged in the other case, and that the question
raised in the motion to quash is only a matter of defense which the
accused may present during the trial of the case on the merits.

Acting on the motion to quash and the opposition filed thereto, the
court issued an order on May 21, 1958 holding that the crime of illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition with which the accused is charged
in the present case cannot, be prosecuted separately from that of
rebellion with which the accused is already charged in the Court of
First Instance of Manila which necessarily includes the illegal
possession of the firearm and ammunition the accused must have used in
connection, with his alleged rebellious activities. The court granted
the motion, to quash and dismissed, the case with costs de oficio. The government interposed the present appeal.

In holding that in pressing the present charge it would place the
accused in double jeopardy considering that the firearm and ammunition
involved therein are already absorbed in the complex crime of rebellion
with which the accused. is charged, together with other fourteen
persons, in criminal Case No. 16990 in the Court of First Instance of
Manila, the trial court made the following comment:

“In Criminal Case No. 16990 of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, Elias Rodriguez was one of the fifteen persons
accused of the ‘complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson, and
kidnapping’. The information, which was filed on October 24, 1953,
alleged that the fifteen accused, in conspiracy with many others, have
taken up arms and risen publicly against the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines for the purpose of overthrowing it and as a
necessary means and in furtherance thereof, said accused committed acts
of murder, arson, kidnappings to create and spread terrorism in order
to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose. Insofar as
Elias Rodriguez was concerned, part of the evidence presented against
him to prove the commission of the offense of rebellion was the
possession of a firearm and ammunitions “which were seized from his
residence on August 6, 1951 and for which a separate information was
filed before, the Justice of the Peace Court of Calamba by the
Provincial Fiscal of this province. The period of the alleged illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition in the case is embraced and
necessarily included in the information filed in Criminal Case No.
16990 of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

With the above finding, the Solicitor General disagrees and advances the following comment:

“* * * the information under which appellee is
charged with rebellion cannot be said to have, with the requisite
certainty as prescribed by the rules on criminal procedure (Sec. 8,
Rule 106, Rules of Court), pointed to the act of having in his
possession, custody and control the particular firearm mentioned in the
information in the case at bar, so as to make out a complete identity
of the offense charged herein with that charged in Criminal Case No.
16990 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, or an essential element
thereof constituting by itself another offense (See copy, of
information, pp. 105-107, record). If it would be legally permissible
or practical to establish such identity by means of proof to be
introduced in the trial of the rebellion case the same proof would he
necessary in the case at bar, because solely on the basis of the
allegations of the two informations, the identity of the two offenses
as required to justify or warrant a plea of double jeopardy is far from
being evident or established.”

An examination of the record, however, discloses that the crime with
which the accused is charged in the present case which is that of
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition is already absorbed as a
necessary element or ingredient in the crime of rebellion with which
the same accused is charged with other persons in a separate case and
wherein he pleaded guilty and was convicted. Thus, the record (Shows
that on August 6, 1951; the house of the accused in Calamba, Laguna,
was raided by a combined force of military and police agents, and among
the articles they found therein, which they confiscated was one (1)
Colt Pistol (Auto) Cal. .45 SN- 413307. This gun, with the confiscated
articles, which we assume to be ammunition, was introduced by the
prosecution as evidence in the case of rebellion. On October 24, 1951,
the crime for rebellion was filed which became Criminal Case No. 16990
of the Court of First Instance of Manila. On the other hand, the record
also shows that the information in the present case was filed on
October 80, 1956, which involves the charge of illegal possession of
“one (1) Colt Pistol, Cal .45 Serial No. 413307”, and some ammunitions.
Considering that, as held by this Court, “any or all of the acts
described in Art. 135, when committed as a means to or in furtherance
of, the subversive ends described in Art. 134, become absorbed in the
crime of rebellion, and can not be regarded or penalized as distinct
crimes in themselves * * * and can not be considered as giving, rise to
a separate crime that, under Art. 48 of the code, would constitute a
complex one with that of rebellion” (People vs. Geronimo, 100
Phil., 90; 53 Off. Gaz., 68), the conclusion is inescapable that the
crime with which the accused is charged in the present case is already
absorbed in the rebellion case and so to press it further now would be
to place him in double jeopardy.

While it is true that in the crime of rebellion there is no
allegation that the firearm in question is one of those used in
carrying on the rebellion and that the same was borne by the accused
without a license, the same would not make the present charge different
from the one included in the crime of rebellion, for it. appears from
the record that one of the firearms used in furtherance thereof is the
same pistol with which the accused is now charged. In fact, that pistol
was presented in the rebellion case as evidence. Nor is the fact that
there is no allegation in the rebellion case that the carrying of the
firearm by the accused was without license of any consequence, for it
can be safely assumed that it was so not only because the accused was a
dissident but because the firearm was confiscated from his possession.

The claim of the prosecution that the trial court erred in not
holding that the ground on which the motion to quash is based is a
matter of defense which the appellee should establish at the trial of
the case on the merits is also of no avail, it appearing that the fact
concerning the inclusion of the same firearm in the crime of rebellion
as well as its presentation as evidence therein has been brought out by
the defense in his petition to quash and that fact was not disputed by
the prosecution.

Finally, we find no importance in the claim that in the preliminary
investigation conducted by the Justice of the Peace Court of Calamba,
after his motion to quash has been denied, the accused attempted to
exculpate himself by trying to prove that the firearm did not belong to
him but to another person who merely left it with him to be delivered
to the authorities, because that attempt is not incompatible nor can
defeat his defense of double jeopardy.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs de oficio.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.