Facts: In 1983, Tujan was charged with possession of illegal firearms and in 1990 he was once again charged of the same and was posed with no bail. The counsel of the defendant then filed a motion to quash the case where the petitioner opposed standing that Tujan was not in double jeopardy. Petitioner now comes to this Court, claiming that: (1) the decision of the Court of Appeals is not in accord with the law and applicable jurisprudence; and (2) it was deprived of due process to prosecute and prove its case against private respondent Antonio Tujan in Criminal Case No. 1789.
Issue: Whether the respondent court erred in not applying the accord law and jurisprudence?
Held: The Court of Appeals considered as duplicitous the Information for violation of P.D. No. 1866 filed against private respondent Antonio Tujan. The ruling of the Court of Appeals is erroneous.
No comments:
Post a Comment