NUBLA, JESSICA MAE

FACTS:

1st case
In 1995, X was charged with the crime of rebellion committed between 1975-1985 with co-accused Z &
Y. On the occasion of rebellion, they killed A, B and C, to which he, after a plea bargain and compromise
with the government (consent), pleaded guilty and convicted in 1990, with understanding that plea is
with the benefit of absorption.

Accused: X, Y, Z
Case: Rebellion with benefit of absorption
Victims: A B C
Result of the case: Plea bargain, and Compromise, PLEADED GUILTY, CONVICTION
Period covered: 1975-1985

2nd case
In 1999, it was discovered that X, now octogenarian, in conspiracy with Q, R, S & T committed murder of
15 other persons suspected of being government spies from the period of 1975-1985. He is now being
charged with the crime of murder before the RTC.

Accused: X, Q, R, S, T
Case: Murder
Victims: 15 other persons
Result: NONE YET
Period covered: 1975-1985

ISSUES:
1. Is there double jeopardy? (based on Constitution and Jurisprudence)
2. Can the remedy of Motion to Quash be used? (Rules of Court)

LEGAL BASIS:

MOTION TO QUASH:

The grounds for a Motion to Quash are provided in Sec. 3, Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure, and here are the items that may be used in the instant case.
 
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (Prescribed)
 
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the  offense  charged,  or  the  case 
against  him  was  dismissed  or otherwise terminated without his express consent. (Double Jeopardy)
PRESCRIPTION:

Murder is defined under the Revised Penal Code as:

Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246
shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed
men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure
or afford impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,

derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means
of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and
ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or

of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the

victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

In the instant case, the 2 nd case constituting the crime of Murder was discovered in 1999. The
Information for the crime of murder was then filed recently in 2020. Under the Art. 90 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4661:

Art. 90. Prescription of crimes. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion

perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.

Applying the above-mentioned provision in the Revised Penal Code, the period of which the
crime should have been charged has prescribed. Thus, the Information should be quashed under Rule
117, Sec. 3, par. g of the Rules of Court, Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides:

(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Rebellion was defined in the Revised Penal Code as:

Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. — The crime of rebellion or

insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government
 for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the
territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or
other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or
partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968).

The 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of the accused against double jeopardy, thus:
Section 7, Rule 117 of the 1985 and 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure strictly adhere to the
constitutional proscription against double jeopardy and provide for the requisites in order for double
jeopardy to attach. For double jeopardy to attach, the following elements must concur: 

(1) a valid information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime
charged; 
(2) a court of competent jurisdiction; 
(3) the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and 
(4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express
consent.

In the case of People vs. ELIAS LOVEDIORO y CASTRO, G.R. No. 112235, November 29, 1995, it
was provided that the crime of rebellion absorbed the crime of murder. The gravamen of the crime of
rebellion is an armed public uprising against the government. By its very nature, rebellion is essentially a
crime of masses or multitudes involving crowd action, which cannot be confined a priori within
predetermined bounds. One aspect noteworthy in the commission of rebellion is that other acts
committed in its pursuance are, by law, absorbed in the crime itself because they acquire a political
character.

The crime as charged in the Information for murder alleges that such murder happened during
the same period (1975-1985) as the crime of rebellion for which the accused X was previously convicted,
with the benefit of absorption. Therefore, all other acts of political character committed within the same
period and in pursuance of the crime of rebellion, are covered by the first case for which the accused X
had already been convicted of. Hence, the filing of the Information against X, previously convicted of the
crime of Rebellion, must be quashed on the ground that the accused has been previously convicted or
acquitted of the  offense  charged,  or  the  case  against  him  was  dismissed  or otherwise terminated
without his express consent.