DULAP, AND LOLITO ALMOITE, VS. HON. ADELARDO ESCOSES, IN HIS

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premised on the foregoing jurisprudential tenets and rational application thereof to the facts of the instant case, the motion to quash the above-entitled cases is hereby denied. Let the accused be arraigned on the two Informations at bench at the earliest available calendar of the court." [7] The motion for reconsideration of the aforequoted order was likewise denied in the resolution dated November 20, 1998: "WHEREFORE, premised on the foregoing doctrinal tenets applied to the facts as culled from the records of these cases, the formal joint and consolidated motion for reconsideration of the September 30, 1998 order of this Court is hereby denied. Let the arraignment of the accused on the Informations at bench be set at the earliest available calendar of the court." [8] The issues raised by petitioners in their Memorandum are as follows: "ISSUES "WHETHER OR NOT THE NON-COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF VIOLATION OF PD 1866 AS AMENDED BY RA 8294, WHICH ELEMENT MUST BE ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION. "WHETHER OR NOT THE PENDENCY OF A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE COMELEC INVOLVING THE SAME ACT OF PETITIONERS DEPRIVED THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF THE AUTHORITY TO FILE THE INFORMATION. "WHETHER OR NOT THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH WHICH SUPPOSEDLY RESULTED IN THE DISCOVERY AND SEIZURE OF FIREARMS FROM PETITIONERS IS LEGAL." The first issue is resolved against the Petitioners. Their principal argument in support of this issue is not only amiss but also deceiving. Contrary to what they point out, the amendatory law (Republic Act No. 8294) does not add to the existing elements of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. What it does is merely to excuse the accused from prosecution of the same in case another crime is committed. In People vs. Valdez, [9] this Court, under the ponencia of Justice Jose A.R. Melo, explained that the dismissal of the second case against Valdez involving violation of P.D. 1866 did not mean that there can no longer be any prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearm. Consequently, all pending cases as well as subsequent violations of P.D. 1866, as amended, will continue to be prosecuted and tried if no other crimes expressly indicated in R.A. 8294 [10] concur. Considering that the other offense charged in Criminal Case No. 14354 - for violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 3045 - is not one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, the respondent judge was correct in not quashing the information in Criminal Case No. 14353. [11] Still under the first issue, Petitioners' argument that the continuation of the two questioned cases against them violates the Constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy is not only strained but totally unacceptable. It is manifestly clear from the records that no first jeopardy has yet attached. Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides: "Section 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy . - When an accused has been convicted or