Crimes Against Public Order

Beth - noneClarisse - noneEmerson - noneFranco - noneGab – 99 Phil. 515

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.,defendants-appellants.

Facts:

This refers to the petition for bail filed by defendant appellant Amado Hernandez on June 26, 1954, and renewed on December 22, 1955. The prosecution maintains that Hernandez is charged with, and has been convicted of, rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robberies, for which the capital punishment, it is claimed, may be imposed, although the lower court sentenced him merely to life imprisonment. On the other hand, the defense contends, among other things, that rebellion can not be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery.

The amended Information contained the allegation that on or about March 15, 1945, and for some time before the said date and continuously thereafter until the present time, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring, confederating, and cooperating with each other, as well as with the 31 other defendants, being then officers and/or members of, or otherwise associated with the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO), formerly known as the Committee on Labor Organization (CLO), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously help, support, promote, maintain, cause, direct and/or command the 'Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan' (HMB) or the Hukbalahaps (“Huks”) to rise publicly and take arms against the Republic of the Philippines, or otherwise participate in such armed public uprising, for the purpose of removing the territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to the government and laws thereof, as in fact the said Huks have risen publicly and taken

arms to attain the said purpose by then and there making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army detachments as well as innocent civilians, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, have then and there committed acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned destruction of private and public property to create and spread chaos, disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose.

Issue: Can Rebellion be made into a complex crime?

Held: No, it cannot.

Wherefore, the aforementioned motion for bail of defendant-appellant Amado V. Hernandez is hereby granted and, upon the filing of a bond, with sufficient sureties, in the sum of P30,000, and its approval by the court, let said defendant-appellant be provisionally released. It is so ordered.

Ratio:

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that: "When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period."

Pursuant to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code "any person, merely participating or executing the commandsof others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period."

The penalty is increased to prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000 for "any person who promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion or insurrection or who, while holding any public office or employment, takes part therein":1. "engaging in war against the forces of the government",2. "destroying property", or3. "committing serious violence",

4. "exacting contributions or"5. "diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated".

Whether performed singly or collectively, these five (5) classes of acts constitute only one offense, and no more, and are, altogether, subject to only one penalty — prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000.

One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said Article 135, is by "engaging in war against the forces of the government" and "committing serious violence" in the prosecution of said "war". These expressions imply everything that war connotes, namely; resort to arms, requisition of property and services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical injuries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and unhappiness that war leaves in its wake — except that, very often, it is worse than war in the international sense, for it involves internal struggle, a fight between brothers, with a bitterness and passion or ruthlessness seldom found in a contest between strangers. Being within the purview of "engaging in war" and "committing serious violence", said resort to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction of life and property, constitutes not two or more offense, but only one crime — that of rebellion plain and simple. Inasmuch as the acts specified in said Article 135 constitute, one single crime, it followsnecessarily that said acts offer no occasion for the application of Article 48, which requires therefor the commission of, at least, two crimes.

Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive. If a crime usually regarded as common like homicide, is perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance "to the Government the territory of the Philippines Islands or any part thereof," then said offense becomes stripped of its "common" complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the

crime of rebellion, the former acquires the political character of the latter.

There is one other reason — and a fundamental one at that — why Article 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar: If murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this could be done), the following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon the modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor; and (2) for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying circumstances present. In other words, in theabsence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. However, under Article 48, said penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in the absence of a singlea ggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant. Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was enacted for the purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty more severe than that which would be proper if the several acts performed by him were punished separately.

Joan – 100 Phil. 90

Karla – 3 SCRA 217

PEOPLE vs. CRUZG.R. No. L-11870. October 16, 1961.Concepcion, J.

FACTS:- The said accused, being then ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines and the 'Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan' (HUK), have all come together and agreed to commit the crime of rebellion (i.e. rising publicly and taking up arms against the

Government of the Republic of the Phiippines by making armed raids, sorties, ambushes, and attacks against Phil Constabulary, Civilian Guards, Police, Army patrols, as well as civilians). In furtherance thereof, they have committed the acts of murders, pillages lootings, plunders, arsons, and planned destructions of private and public property to create disorder - March 20, 1951; 830 AM: Benito Cruz, and other Huk members, entered the house of John Hardie, with violence and intimidation, then took and carried away therefrom personal properties of material values consisting of a typewriter, a radio, several pieces of jewelry, books, clothings and other articles belonging to the latter amounting to Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) After ransacking the place, the raiders tied the hands of John D. Hardie and his foreman Donald Capuano and shot them to death, together with Mrs. Hardie. Late the month, a combat patrol led by Capt. Conrado M. Cabagui of the 14th BCT, with the assistance of one Tomas Timbresa, as guide, located a Huk camp in the Sierra Madre Mountains.- March 21, 1951: Some 70 armed members of FC #32 of the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" led by Comdr. Robert, fought the members of Co "D" of the 14th BCT, Armed Forces of the Philippines under Capt. Conrado Cabague.- April 21, 1951: Accused Fermin Tolentino, as the Commanding Officer of FC 25 of the 'Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan', leading some 70 armed members of the said organization, attacked, fired at and engaged into a fight the officers and men of a detachment of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.- November 15, 1952: Accused Domingo dela Torre and about 12 other armed men, all members of Huk, in support of and/or in furtherance of the movement of the said organization to overthrow the established government of the Phil, while soliciting food from civilians thereat, fought elements of the 7th BCT, Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Civilian Commando Unit of Montalban, Rizal.- April 5, 1951: Elements of the AFP had an encounter with 50 Huks under commander Silang at Sitio Malabayas, Sampaloc, Tanay, Rizal, resulting in the death of one (1) Huk, two (2) EM and wounding of another enlisted man. - December 11, 1951: Elements of the AFP had an encounter

with about fourteen (14) armed Huks under Commander Aladdin at Sitio Kaulanog, Tanay, Rizal, resulting in the wounding of one (1) enlisted man. - April 28, 1949: An undetermined number of Huks jointly led by Commanders Viernes, Marzan, Lupo and Mulong, treacherously ambushed, assaulted, attacked and fire upon the party of Mrs. Aurora A. Quezon and her PC escort, whom they considered as their enemies, resulting in the death of Mrs. Aurora A. Quezon, Baby Quezon, Mayor Bernardo of Quezon City, Maj. P. San Agustin, Lt. Lasam, Philip Buencamino III and several soldiers, and injuries to General Jalandoni and Capt. Manalang.- August 25, 1950: An undetermined number of armed Huks raided, assaulted and attacked Camp Makabulos and set fire on the buildings and installations therein killing Maj. E. D. Orlino, Capt. E. D. Cruz, Lts. Manacias, N. C. Tan, Eusebio Cabute, and several enlisted men, including Rosario Sotto, a Red Cross Nurse. - August 26, 1950: About 100 armed Huks, with intent of gain and for the purpose of procuring supplies and other materials for the support and maintenance of the HMB organization, forcibly brought the cashier of the Provincial Treasury, Vicente Reventar, from his house to the Provincial Capitol and at the point of guns, forced him to open the treasury, and from which took money amounting to Php 80,000.

ISSUE:Whether or not the appellants committed the crime of rebellion.

HELD:

Yes. As stated in the brief for the Government, appellants herein are guilty of simple rebellion, inasmuch as the information alleges, and the records show that the acts imputed to them were performed as a means to commit the crime of rebellion and in furtherance thereof, although as Huk Commanders, appellants Benito Cruz and Fermin Tolentino fall under the first paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P20,000, whereas appellant Paterno Cruz comes under the second

paragraph of said article, which prescribes the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period. Accordingly, the penalty meted out to appellants Benito Cruz and Fermin Tolentino should be reduced to ten (10) years of prision mayor, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay each a fine of P10,000, and appellant Paterno Cruz should be sentenced to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law.

The decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with the proportionate part of the costs against said appellants.

RebellionFRANCISCO R. CARIÑO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS

April 30, 1963    En Banc    Labrador, J.

DOCTRINE: In rebellion or insurrection, the RPC expressly declares that there must be a public uprising and the taking up of arms. The act of giving aid and comfort is not criminal in rebellion unlike in treason.

FACTS:- Accused was charged with rebellion for allegedly being in conspiracy with the other members of the Communist Party, between the period from May 6, 1946 to September 12, 1950 for acts committed:1) The ambush on May 6, 1946 of the 10th MPC Company in Barrio Sta. Monica, Aliaga, Nueva Ecija; resulting in the death of 10 enlisted men; 2) The raid on August 6, 1946 of the Municipal Building of Majayjay, Laguna; 3) The ambush on April 10, 1947 of 14 enlisted men in Barrio San Miguel na Munti, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, during which Lt. Pablo Cruz and Pvt. Santiago Mercado were killed; 4) The raid on the poblacion of Laur, Nueva Ecija of May 9, 1947; 5) The ambush on August 19, 1947 of a detachment of the 155th Company, in San Miguel, Bulacan,

killing two officers thereof; 6) The raid on Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija of June 1946; 7) The ambush on April 25, 1947 of Mrs. Aurora Aragon Quezon and party at Barrio Salubsob, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, resulting in the death of said Mrs. Quezon and other members of her party; 8) The raid on Camp Macabulos, Tarlac, Tarlac, on August 25, 1950; 9) The raid on Sta. Cruz, Laguna, of August 26, 1950; 10) The raid on Arayat, Pampanga, of August 25, 1950; 11) The seizure of September 12, 1950 of an army scout car in Barrio Mapalad, Arayat, Pampanga and the murder of two TPs on the said occasion; 12) The attack on the headquarters of a PC detachment of March 28, 1950, at Montalban, Rizal; and 13) The raid on San Pablo, Laguna, of March 29, 1950, resulting in the death of Major Alikbusan of the government armed forces. - He admitted the truthfulness of the said events but denied any participation.- Accused is a good friend and a former high school classmate of Dr. Lava, a well-known Communist leader. The latter has treated the family of the accused successfully and free of charge and is the godfather of one of the children.- 1946, nighttime: Lava arrived at their home and asked for shelter as he was being pursued by politicians upon suspicion of his involvement in the killing of Mayor Roxas of Bulacan. He left early the morning after.- May 1949: A note from the Lava arrived asking for some cigarettes, powdered milk and canned goods. The note was brought by a boy of 12 or 15 years, named Totoy, and through him the accused sent the needed supplies. He was instructed to sign "Turko" all notes to be sent by him to Lava and to address them to "Pinang" in order to conceal their respective identities. - 1949 - April 1952: This exchange of notes between them and the furnishing of supplies and foodstuffs by appellant to Dr. Lava lasted until the accused was arrested and detained.- He also allegedly provided assistance to the Communist party as a ranking employee of the National City Bank of New York when he was approached by a prominent member of a special unit of the Communist Party, and delivered the amount of $6,000 to the treasurer of the communists. He also assisted two top-level communists in opening current accounts in the National City

Bank of New York although their initial deposit was below P2,000, the minimum required by the bank. (However it was not shown that the persons helped were known by appellant to be communist and the funds intended to carry out the rebellion.)- 1949: A spy, Florentino Diolata, heard him state that he was at the command of his comrades for any assistance for the advancement and promotion of their common purpose at a banquet given by the Communists in honor of Amado V. Hernandez

INFORMATION: Crime of rebellion with murders, arson, robberies and kidnappings, for having, as a high ranking officer and/or member of the Communist Party of the Philippines and of the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (Huks), agreed in conspiracy with 31 other who were charged with the same crime in other criminal cases then pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government and disrupting its activities.CFI Manila: Guilty as accomplice in the crime of rebellion, and sentencing him to suffer two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional and to pay a fine in the sum of P2,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.CA: Affirmed CFI decision and convicted the accused of the crime of rebellion as the acts done by him constitute acts of cooperation with the communists in their primordial purpose of overthrowing the government and such acts naturally have contributed to some extent in the advancement and promotion of their purpose.

ISSUE: Whether the acts committed by the petitioner were enough to render him guilty as an accomplice in the crime of rebellion

HELD: No.

There are two elements required in order that a person may be considered an accomplice to a criminal act, namely; 1) that he take part in the execution of the crime by previous and simultaneous acts and; 2)  that he intend by said acts to

commit or take part in the execution of the crime. The acts of the appellant do not prove any criminal intent of helping the Huks in committing the crime of insurrection or rebellion. Good faith is presumed, and there is no presumption of criminal intent or aiding the communists in their unlawful designs to overthrow the Government.

Even if he had intent, he is still not liable as his assistance was not efficacious enough to help in the success of the crime so as to make him an accomplice. Appellant's acts did not constitute acts of cooperation in the execution of the act of overthrowing the government. Appellant was not a member of the Hukbalahap organization. He did not take up arms against the Government, nor did he openly take part in the commission of the crime of rebellion or insurrection as defined in article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, without which said crime would not have been committed. The only acts he was shown to have performed were the sending or furnishing of cigarettes and food supplies to a Huk leader, the changing of dollars into pesos for a top-level communists and the helping of Huks in opening accounts with the bank of which he was an official.

Even if considered an indirect help or aid in the rebellion, they cannot constitute previous or simultaneous acts or uprising or rebellion, for, unlike in the crime of treason, the acts giving comfort of moral did is not criminal in the case of rebellion or insurrection, where the Revised Penal Code expressly declares that there must be a public uprising and the taking up of arms.

DISPOSITION: The judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED and the appellant ABSOLVED from the charge contained in the information.

Mico – 109 SCRA 273In the Matter of the Application for a writ of habeas corpusBernabe Buscayno, Jose Ma. Sison, Juliet Sison v. Mil. Comm. 1, 2, 6, 25

Original Decision: Military Commission - Buscayno convicted of

subversion, death by firing squadSC Decision: No illegal detention. No bail. No double jeopardy.

Buscayno’s cases-Buscayno and Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. charged before Mil. Comm. 2 with subversion

-staged NPA-sponsored demonstration in Manila-Aquino gave Buscayno several .45 caliber pistols, two

armored vests and walkie-talkies, and ammunition.-Aquino provided shelter and medical treatment for

members of the HMB and NPA

-Aquino, Buscayno, as conspirators, charged with murder before Mil. Comm. 2

-took Cecilio Sumat, barrio captain, and killed him

-Buscayno, with 91 others charged with rebellion before Mil. Comm. 1

-Feb 4, 1972. rose publicly and took up arms against the government in Navotas, Rizal by organizing the Karagatan Fishing Corporation to procure firearms

-Aug, 1973 - Feb, 1974. rebellion in Manila, Baguio, La Union, Pangasinan, Bulacan by acquiring vessels, houses, lots to distribute firearms

-Buscayno arrested on Aug 26, 1976 in Pampanga-At trial and arraignment, he waived his right to be present

and to have counsel-Pleaded not guilty-Did not want to present evidence-July 18, 1977 - Juan T. David entered his appearance as

counsel for Buscayno and filed a petition for habeas corpus and prohibition

-Commission found accused guilty and sentenced to death by firing squad

-May 4, 1981 - Commission reaffirmed original decision

Sison cases-charged with rebellion before Special Mil Comm 1

-charged with subversion before Mil. Comm. 6-alleged that accused became and have remained

officers of CPP and NPA-engaged in indoctrination, promotion of communist

pattern of subversion

Rebellion case-Sison and Buscayno assailed jurisdiction of the military

tribunal to try civilians like them-filed petition for habeas corpus, prohibition, mandamus.

denied

Instant case-prayed that the decision of Mil. Comm. 2 be declared void

because he was denied his constitutional right to present evidence and that he be released from detention; charges for rebellion and subversion be dismissed for being in contravention of the rule on double jeopardy

Issue: W/N they are legally detained. No, not illegally detained and no justification for their release

Held:Proclamation No. 2045 sanctions continued confinement: persons under detention for rebellion and subversion cannot enjoy the privilege of the write of habeas corpus

On the issue of the Anti-Subversion LawContention of Juliet de Lima-Sison: criminal liability for subversion extinguished when PD 885 repealed RA 1700. SC: No.-Anti-Subversion Law expressly provides: acts committed in violation of the former law shall be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the provisions of the former act and nothing in the decree shall prevent prosecution of cases pending for violation of RA 1700

On the issue of double jeopardyFor an accused to be in jeopardy, required:

1. valid complaint or information filed against him

2. that the charge is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction3. after pleading to the charge, accused is convicted,

acquitted, case dismissed or terminated

Petitioners were all charged with rebellion. Only Buscayno’s subversion case was decided but the decision is subject to review. No case against petitioners has been terminated thus, the rule on double jeopardy cannot be invoked.

On the issue of rebellion being an element of subversionSubversion does not necessarily include rebellion. Subversion is a crime against national security. Rebellion is a crime against public order.

Petitioners were accused of rebellion for having undertaken a public uprising to overthrow the government. As for having been accused of subversion, they were allegedly officers and ranking members of the Communist party. Overt acts of resisting armed forces were incidental to the main charge of being leaders of subversive organizations.

Rebellion may be committed by noncommunists without collaborating with the agents of an alien power. On the other hand subversion came into existence when the communists sought to dominate the world in order to establish a new political order.

Monching – 186 SCRA 216

[Crimes against public order – Rebellion]In the Matter of Petition for Habeas Corpus, Juan Ponce Enrile v. RTC QC Judge Jaime SalazarG.R. No. 92163, June 5, 1990Ponente: Justice NarvasaFacts:In the afternoon of 2/27/1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader JPE, and spouses Panlilio, was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the NBI on the strength of a warrant issued by respondent judge earlier that day, for rebellion

and multiple murder during the period of the failed coup attempt from 11/29 to 12/10/1990. JPE was taken and held overnight at the NBI headquarters in Taft Avenue, without bail, none having been recommended in the information and none fixed in the warrant. The following morning, he was brought to Camp Karingal in QC. That day, JPE, through counsel, filed a petitione for habeas corpus, alleging he was deprived of his constitutional rights in being held to answer for a criminal offense nonexistent in statute books and charged with a crime in an information for which no complaint was initially filed or no preliminary investigation was conducted (thus no due process), granted. The Solicitor General argued that petitioners’ case does not fall within the Hernandez ruling because the information in Hernandez charged murders and other common crimes as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion, whereas the information against Sen. Enrile et al. charged murder and frustrated murder committed on the occasion, but not in furtherance, of rebellion. The court granted JPE and the Panlilio spouses provisional liberty on bail. Petitioners pray for the abandonment of the Hernandez ruling, rule that rebellion cannot absorb more serious crimes and that Hernandez applies only to offenses committed in furtherance, or as a necessary means, to commit rebellion, but not to acts committed in the course of a rebellion which also constitute "common" crimes of grave or less grave character.Issue:Whether or not rebellion can be complexed with murder.Held:No. Hernandez stands. Murder is absorbed in rebellion. If murder were punished separately from rebellion, and the two crimes were separately punished, then 2 penalties would be imposed, and so the extreme penalty could not be imposed, which would be unfavorable. The purpose of RPC48 is to favor the culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty more severe than that which would be proper if the several acts performed by him were punished separately. If one act constitutes two or more offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of said offenses put together. In directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in such

case, imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 could have had no other purpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately. When two or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said crimes thru separate and distinct acts. Instead of sentencing him for each crime independently from the other, he must suffer the maximum of the penalty for the more serious one, on the assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate penalties for each offense. Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. Also, since the information does not charge an offense, and disregarding phrasing that rebellion be complexed, indictment is to be read as charging only simple rebellion. Hence, entitled to bail, before final conviction, as a matter of right.

Patty – 23 SCRA 72People V LavaZaldivar J.; May 16, 1969

FACTS:§  Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz y Adriano, Rosario C. Viuda de Santos, Angel Baking, Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Sr., Esteban Gonzales y la Torre, Marcos Medina, Cesario Torres, Rosenda Canlas Reyes, Arturo Baking y Calma, Simeon Gutierrez y Rodriguez, Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez, Victorina Rodriguez y Gutierrez, Marciano de Leon, Honofre D. Mangila, Cenon Bungay y Bagtas, Magno Pontillera Bueno, Nicanor Capalad, Rosalina Quizon, Pedro Vicencio, Julia Mesina, Felipe Engreso, Elpidio Acuño Adime, Josefina Adelan y Abusejo, Conrado Domingo, Aurora Garcia, and Naty Cruz were all arrested and charged with the complex crime of rebellion with murders and arsons under an identical information that:-   On May 6, 1946, these people intended to overthrow the seat

of the Gov’t of the Philippine Republic in the City of Manila.-   And the accused, being high officials of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), of which the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB) is its armed forces, decided to commit rebellion and did so by making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army detachments and committing wanton acts of murder, spoilage, looting, arson, planned destruction of private and public buildings, to create and spread terrorism.

§  Of the 31, five were acquitted, namely: Julia Mesina, Rosenda Canlas Reyes, Victorina Rodriguez y Gutierrez, Nicanor Capalad and Aurora Garcia.§  Of the 26 who were convicted, all appealed to this Court except defendant Esteban Gonzales la Torre. And later on, Rosalina Quizon, Elpidio Acuño Adime, Josefina Adelan Abusejo, Conrado Domingo and Naty Cruz withdrew their appeal.§  During the pendency of the appeal, defendants Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez and Magno Pontillera Bueno died.§  18 defendants were left to the appeal, namely: Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Rosario Vda. de Santos, Angel Baking, Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Marcos Medina, Cesareo Torres, Arturo Baking, Simeon G. Rodriguez, Marciano de Leon, Honofre Mangila, Cenon Bungay, Pedro Vicencio, and Felipe Engreso.

Issues:§  Whether or not the accused are guilty of rebellion.§  Whether or not a person may be prosecuted and held guilty of the crime of rebellion complexed with murder, arson, robbery and/or other common crimes.

Held:§  Nicanor Razon, Sr. and Felipe Engreso were acquitted.§  Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Angel Baking, Cesario Torres, Simeon G. Rodriguez, Honofre Mangila and Simeon

Bungay are found guilty as principals in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion.§  Rosario C. Vda. de Santos, Lamberto Magboo and Arturo Baking, Marciano de Leon and Pedro T. Vicencio is found guilty as a participant in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion.§  Marcos Medina is found guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion§  NO!!§  Petition PARTIALLY GRANTED. Decision is MODIFIED.

Ratio:§  Nicanor Razon, Sr.: No sufficient evidence to show that he had performed any act, which would constitute a cooperation in promoting the rebellion jointly undertaken by the CPP and the HMB. He is only a member of the CCP, as secretary and treasurer.§  Felipe Engreso: Was simply a houseboy of Federico Maclang. He did not know that he was dealing with communists and was only following orders of his master.§  Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Angel Baking, Cesario Torres, Simeon G. Rodriguez, Honofre Mangila and Simeon Bungay are ALL high ranking officers of either CPP and HMB. They all performed their duties and role in fulfilling the goals of the organization and sought for rebellion against the Philippine gov’t. They were all LEADERS of the rebellion.§  Rosario C. Vda. de Santos: only a staff member of the National Courier (or Communication) Division of the CPP, and that she checked and made reports on the arrival and dispatch of couriers. She was merely executing the orders or commands of others who are superior to her in the organizational set-up of the CPP. And since all this she did while CPP went underground and HMB was already doing armed operations, she is still liable as a participant.§  Lamberto Magboo: He is only a courier from the headquarters of the National Courier Division of the CPP

in Manila and was actually working and cooperating with the armed operations to overthrow the government. So still liable as a participant.§  Arturo Baking: He is a confirmed communist, and was in full sympathy with the armed struggle being promoted by the leaders of the CPP and the HMB in order to overthrow the existing government of the Philippines. BUT he was only the assistant of appellant Cesario Torres, who was entrusted with the publication and distribution of the official organs of the CPP and the HMB, as well as of the printing and distribution of the documents of these two organizations. Being an assistant of appellant Cesario Tores who is a principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and not proven to have committed acts of rebellion himself, he is only a participant.§  Marciano de Leon: He also took part in the conspiracy to overthrow the government by armed struggle and did his bit by furnishing Federico Bautista with information and records regarding the HMB activities obtainable from the PC Headquarters by virtue of his position in the Personnel Section of the Philippine Constabulary. BUT he is a mere participant in the commission of rebellion since he only cooperated or helped in the prosecution of the armed rebellion.§  Pedro T. Vicencio: It was not proven that he actually took part in the armed operations of the HMB. BUT, his having delivered foodstuffs, medicines and other supplies which were intended for the HMB, and his having delivered packages to Rosario Vda. de Santos who was in charge of the outpost where couriers go to deliver, or to get, letters or articles intended for RECOS in the field, clearly indicate that this appellant was actively cooperating in the efforts of those promoting the rebellion. Being 20 years of age and a college student, it can be expected that he knew that he was doing something for the communists and the Huks.  

IMPORTANT RE RebellionRebellion cannot be complexed with other crimes.

§  The crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of both the armed uprising for the purposes expressed in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, and the overt acts of violence described in the first paragraph of Article 135. That both purpose and overt acts are essential components of one crime, and that without either of them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist.

Pepi -  4 Phil. 273