Republic of the Philippines Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB)" otherwise known as the SUPREME COURT Hukbalahap (HUK), the latter being the armed force of said Manila Communist Party, having come to an agreement and having decided to commit the crime of rebellion, and, thereby conspiring EN BANC and confederating among themselves together with all of the 31 accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 14071, 14082, 14270, 14315 and 14344 (Politburo Cases) in the Court of First Instance of Manila, G.R. No. L-11870 October 16, 1961 with other members, officers and/or affiliates of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, (HMB)" or HUKS and many others whose identities and vs. whereabouts are still unknown, acting in accordance with their BENITO CRUZ, ET AL., defendants. conspiracy and in the furtherance thereof, and mutually helping one FERMIN TOLENTINO, BENITO CRUZ and PATERNO CRUZ, defendants- another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously help, appellants. support, promote, direct and/or command the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB)" or the Hukbalahap (HUK) to rise Cipriano Manansala and Jose Lao for defendants-appellants. publicly and take up arms against the Government of the Republic Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. of the Philippines, or otherwise participate in such public uprising for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to the said government and laws thereof, the territory of the Philippines or CONCEPCION, J.: portion thereof, as in fact the said "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB)" or the HUKS, pursuant to such conspiracy, have Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal convicting risen publicly and taken up arms against the Government of the appellants Paterno Cruz and Benito Cruz of "rebellion with robbery with Republic of the Philippines to attain said purpose by then and there homicide," and appellant Fermin Tolentino of "rebellion with arson, with making armed raids, sorties, ambushes and attacks against the murder and robbery." The case is before us, the penalty imposed upon Philippine Constabulary, the Civilian Guards, the Police and Army appellants being life imprisonment. patrols and other detachments constituted and organized by the government of the Philippines, as well as upon ordinary civilians, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of Rebellion in On or about November 23, 1953, the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed with the connection therewith and in the furtherance thereof, have the and Court of First Instance of said province an information accusing said there committed wanton acts of murders, pillages, lootings, appellants, together with Elpidio Gantan (alias Marco plunders, arsons and planned destructions of private and public Polo, alias Acosta, aliasMaralva), Domingo de la Torre properties to create and spread disorders, terrors, confusions, (alias Meding, alias Espiritu), Espiridion Salcedo (alias Lafredo), and Amado chaos and fear among the population and by the use of force and Sanchez Cruz (alias Enriquez) of the "complex crime of rebellion, with intimidation, organized different barrio organizations to secure multiple murder, robberies and arsons," allegedly committed as follows: supplies and materials for the support and maintenance of said uprisings, to wit: That on or about May 28, 1946, and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto and continuously up to the present time, in the I province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and in other municipalities, cities and provinces and other parts of the country where they have chosen to carry out That on or about March 20, 1951, at about 8:30 o'clock in the their rebellious activities, the said accused, being then ranking evening, in the municipality of Antipolo, province of Rizal, the herein officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the accused BENITO CRUZ, leading some armed members of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the "Hukbong "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan", including the accused herein PATERNO CRUZ, with intent of gain and for the purpose of furtherance of the movement of the said organization to overthrow procuring supplies for their organization, entered the residence of the established government of the Republic of the Philippines, while JOHN D. HARDIE, and with violence and intimidation upon the said soliciting food from civilians thereat, fought elements of the 7th JOHN D. HARDIE, took and carried away therefrom personal BCT, Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Civilian Commando properties of material values consisting of a typewriter, a radio, Unit of Montalban, Rizal. several pieces of jewelry, books, clothings and other articles belonging to the latter amounting to Five Thousand Pesos V (P5,000.00), more or less, and that before leaving the premises, the said BENITO CRUZ and PATERNO CRUZ, cooperating with one another and with the other members of the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya That on or about April 5, 1951, elements of the Armed Forces of the Ng Bayan" present thereat, tied the hands of JOHN D. HARDIE and Philippines had an encounter with about fifty (50) armed Huks DONALD CAPUANO and thereafter shot them to death together under commander Silang at Sitio Malabayas, Sampaloc, Tanay, with IRENE W. HARDIE. Rizal, resulting in the death of one (1) Huk, (2) EM and wounding of another enlisted man. II VI That on March 21, 1951, in the municipality of Pililla, province of Rizal, some 70 armed members of FC #32 of the "Hukbong That on or about December 11, 1951, elements of the Armed Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" led by Comdr. ROBERT, fought the Forces of the Philippines had an encounter with about fourteen (14) members of Co "D" of the 14th BCT, Armed Forces of the armed Huks under Commander Aladdin at Sitio Kaulanog, Tanay, Philippines under Capt. Conrado Cabague. Rizal, resulting in the wounding of one (1) enlisted man.

III VII

That on or about April 21, 1951, in the municipality of Moron, That on or about April 28, 1949, at kilometer #62 at Salubsob, in the province of Bataan, the accused FERMIN TOLENTINO, as the municipality of Bongabong, in the province of Nueva Ecija, an Commanding Officer of FC 25 of the 'Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng undetermined number of HMBs jointly led by Commanders Viernes, Bayan', leading some 70 armed members of the said organization, Marzan, Lupo and Mulong, treacherously ambushed, assaulted, attacked, fired at and engaged into a fight the officers and men of a attacked and fired upon the party of Mrs. Aurora A. Quezon and her detachment of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, resulting to the PC escort, whom they considered as their enemies, resulting in the deaths and injuries of some of the said officers and/or men, and death of Mrs. Aurora A. Quezon, Baby Quezon, Mayor Bernardo of that during the same year, in the municipality of Hermosa, same Quezon City, Maj. P. San Agustin, Lt. Lasam, Philip Buencamino III province, the said accused FERMIN TOLENTINO, with a group of and several soldiers, and injuries to General Jalandoni and Capt. armed Huks, attacked and engaged into a fight the officers and Manalang. men of another detachment of the Armed Forces of the Philippines thereat. VIII

IV That on or about August 25, 1950, in the municipality of Tarlac, in the province of Tarlac, an undetermined number of armed HMBs, That on or about November 15, 1952, in the municipality of San raided, assaulted and attacked Camp Makabulos and set fire on the Mateo, province of Rizal, the accused DOMINGO DELA TORRE building and installations therein killing Maj. E. D. Orlino, Capt. E. and about 12 other armed men, all members of FC #46, RECO #4, D. Cruz, Lts. Manacias, N. C. Tan, Eusebio Cabute, and several of the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan", in support of and/or in enlisted men, including Rosario Sotto, a Red Cross Nurse. IX appellants made the affidavits Exhibits V, X, AA and Y in which they admitted being Huks. Benito Cruz further admitted having risen to the rank of Huk That on or about August 26, 1950, in the municipality of Sta. Cruz, Commander and being known as Commander Silang, with 12 men under in the province of Laguna, about 100 armed HMBs with intent of him which was confirmed by Paterno Cruz in his statement Exhibit Y. gain and for the purpose of procuring supplies and other materials Moreover, Benito Cruz and some of his men indicated the place in the for the support and maintenance of the HMB organization, forcibly mountain where — as they allegedly defected from the HMB — they hid their brought the cashier of the Provincial Treasury, Vicente Reventar, arms, which were, accordingly recovered by the authorities. Again, Nicolas from his house to the Provincial Capitol and at the point of guns, Lipunan and Tomas Timbresa testified that they were formerly members of forced him to open the treasury vault and therefrom, took money the HMB; that, as such, they were detailed as "cargadores" to transport the amounting to more than P80,000.00 consisting of different goods and effects looted from the Hardie Farm, when it was raided by the denomination including 50—, 100—, and 500 pesos bills. On this Huks on March 20, 1951; that Benito Cruz and Paterno Cruz participated in same occasion, these dissidents took and carried away typewriters said raid as members of the HMB; and that (according to Lipunan) Benito and other office supplies belonging to the Republic of the Cruz was one of the three (3) Huks who shot Mr. and Mrs. Hardie, and their Philippines, which they found in the Provincial Capitol building, and manager Donald Capuano. also burned and looted private buildings in the said municipality. Benito Cruz and Paterno Cruz claimed, however, to have made and signed X their aforementioned affidavits (Exhibits X and Y) under duress. Furthermore, Paterno Cruz denied having participated in the raid of the Hardie Farm or having any knowledge about the Huks. Said appellants, That in the various municipalities of Rizal and other provinces likewise, introduced the testimony of several residents of Montalban who throughout the Philippines, the leaders, members and affiliates of vouchsafed for them as peaceful and law abiding citizens. the Communist Party of the Philippines and those of the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" have committed similar acts of murders, arsons and kidnappings. His Honor, the Trial Judge, found this evidence insufficient to offset the "overwhelming evidence for the prosecution including the confession" of said appellants. Indeed, the latter did not identify the soldiers that allegedly It appears that in the evening of March 20, 1951, the Hardie Farm in the maltreated them and they showed no visible signs of maltreatment, apart municipality of Antipolo, province of Rizal, was raided by Huks or members from the fact that their aforementioned affidavits contain some exculpatory of the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan" (HMB), the armed force of the statements which are inconsistent with the allegation of duress. Besides, Communist Party of the Philippines, one of the aims of which is to overthrow nothing in the records before us indicate a possible motive for any of the by force of arms the Government of the Philippines. After ransacking the witnesses for the prosecution to falsely inculpate appellants Benito Cruz and place taking therefrom a typewriter and a radio set, as well as stationary, Paterno Cruz. In short, we find no justification whatsoever for disturbing the clothings, foodstuffs and various other articles, the raiders tied the hands of conclusion reached on the lower court with respect to the participation of John D. Hardie and his foreman Donald Capuano and shot them to death, Benito Cruz and Paterno Cruz in the aforementioned raid of the Hardie together with Mrs. Hardie. Late that month, a combat patrol led by Capt. Farm. 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. The agents of the law attacked and captured the camp, in which they found, Upon the other hand, appellant Fermin Tolentino admitted being a Huk, among other objects, the radio set and the typewriter, Exhibits A and B, although he denied having held any rank or responsible position in the taken by the dissidents from the Hardies. organization or having adopted the name "Commander Caviteño." Furthermore, Onofre de Jesus — a member of the HMB from 1943 to 1953 when he surrendered, who had held responsible positions in the Moreover, on July 26, 1951, appellants Paterno Cruz and Benito Cruz, who organization until he became commanding officer of FC-23 — testified that are brothers, were apprehended in the barrio of San Rafael, Montalban, Tolentino had been Commanding Officer (CO), of the Flying Squad of FC-18 Rizal, together with several other persons, by a group of soldiers, under the in 1948, CO of the Security Force under Linda Bie in 1949, CO of FC-25 in command of Capt. Jose Carandang, 19th BCT. Upon investigation, said 1950, G-3 of FC-25 in 1951 and again CO of FC-25 in 1952; that during the raid of Orani, Bataan, on January 5, 1949, by the Huks, Tolentino was one of Makabulos massacre. On top of all these, the record is replete with the officers who ordered the burning of houses therein; and that said at least eight confessions made by the accused Fermin Tolentino appellant took part, also, in the Huk attack at Camp Makabulos, Tarlac, in on separate occasions. In Exhibit "BB" taken by Sgt. Rejualos on August, 1950. May 27, 1953 and interpreted by Sgt. Quiambao, the accused declared that he joined the HMB as a private, then promoted to Similarly, Pablo Guinto, another former Huk, whose wife is Tolentino's aunt, squad leader and later to staff officer, G-3 until he became testified that he (Guinto) formed part of the band of Huks led by Tolentino commander of FC No. 25, Reco 2 from October, 1952 to December that attacked Culis, Hermosa, Bataan, on January 11, 1951; that a store was of the same year; that he was armed with a revolver, caliber 38; looted on that occasion; that a Chinese was then shot and killed by that his men were armed with thirty Garands and automatic Tolentino; that he (Guinto) was likewise with the group of Huks, under the carbines. Three days later, he gave another statement Exhibit "00" command of Tolentino, that raided Orani sometime in 1948 or 1949, Morong, before Atty. Jose de la Fuente wherein he explained how his unit Rizal, on April 21, 1951, and Hermosa, Bataan on December 2, 1951; and operated in ambushing the enemy; that during his membership, FC that Tolentino was the person responsible for the killing of one Valeriano and No. 25 had an encounter at Moron, Bataan in 1950 and at Pajo his son in the raid of Hermosa. between Zambales and Bataan in 1951; that FC No. 25 had 100 men or 12 squads with Bataan as the area of operation. On June 3, 1953 the accused gave another statement, Exhibit "PP", wherein Again, Capt. Julio Dimagiba, commander of the detachment stationed at he admitted having joined the HMB as member in 1946 at Lubao, Dinalupihan, Bataan, in August, 1949, related how he recovered the dead Pampanga; that his reason for joining was his disgust at his father's bodies of Baldomero Simbulan, Antonio Cruz and an unidentified refusal to allow him to go to places like Manila; that he began his hunchback, who were victims of the Huk attack in said municipality on career under Commander Alexander of FC No. 18 (converted into August 23, 1949, and found each corpse with a tag reading "Ako ang FC No. 25). On July 14, 1953, he gave another statement, Exhibit pumatay, Commander Caviteño," the alias of appellant Tolentino, who was "HH", before Lt. Estoque and interpreted by Roque Lapuzwherein apprehended at an army check point in Grace Park, Caloocan, Rizal, on he recounted offices held, the encounters mentioned in Exhibits May 27, 1953. He then had a gunshot wound on the breast, and tried, at "BB" and "OO" and added that in 1950, he studied two months in first, to hide his identity by giving a name different from his. Upon Reco 2 under Linda Bie as instructor; that he was G-3 of FC No. 25 investigation, he later confessed to having been a Huk and made the from July, 1951 to August, 1952. He reiterated his previous statements Exhibits BB, CC, HH, II and JJ, in which he admitted having statements in another confession on August 18, 1953, Exhibit "II". been the Commanding Officer of FC-25 and being known as Commander Caviteño. While under detention, in connection with this case, he escaped, but was recaptured somewhere in Pampanga. We are fully in accord with this view. Needless to say, apart from his bare testimony, appellant Tolentino has not introduced any evidence on his alleged maltreatment by agents of the law, aside from the fact that the same During the trial, he testified that members of the army had maltreated him is refuted by the exculpatory details contained in his aforementioned and then forced him to sign several statements. Besides, he denied the statements. inscription found in the tags aforementioned, as well as having assumed the "alias Commander Caviteño" or having been with any raiding party of the HMB. Lauro David and Remigio Soliman were, also, placed on the witness As stated in the brief for the Government, appellants herein are guilty of stand by appellant Tolentino, to corroborate the latter part of his testimony. simple rebellion (People vs. Nava, L-9483, January 30, 1960; People vs. Hernandez, 52 Off. Gaz., 4612), inasmuch as the information alleges, and the records show that the acts imputed to them were performed as a means Commenting thereon, the lower court had the following to say: to commit the crime of rebellion and in furtherance thereof, although as Huk Commanders, appellants Benito Cruz and Fermin Tolentino fall under the The denial and explanation proffered by the accused and his first paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes witnesses cannot prevail over the clear and positive testimony of the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P20,000, whereas the State witnesses regarding his role in the several raids staged by appellant Paterno Cruz comes under the second paragraph of said article, the HUKs in the province of Bataan, but more particularly in the 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.

Thus modified as to the designation of the crime committed and the penalties, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with the proportionate part of the costs against said appellants. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and De Leon, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

PADILLA, J., dissenting.

I dissent on the point of law only for the reasons stated in my concurring and dissenting opinion in the case ofPeople vs. Geronimo, 53 Off. Gaz., 68, 92. G.R. No. L-4978 May 16, 1969

Republic of the Philippines THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, SUPREME COURT vs. Manila MAGNO PONTILLERA BUENO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

EN BANC Office of the Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro and Solicitor Jorge Coquia for plaintiff-appellee. Recto Law Office, Juan T. David, Crispin D. Baizas and Delgado, Flores, G.R. No. L-4974 May 16, 1969 Macapagal and Dizon for defendant-appellant Jose Lava. Cipriano C. Manansala for defendants-appellants Federico Maclang, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Lamberto Magboo, Honofre D. Magila, Marcos Medina, Cenon Bungay and vs. Magno P. Bueno. JOSE LAVA, ET AL., defendants-appellees. R. M. Paterno for defendants-appellants Marciano de Leon and Cesareo Torres. ------Irineo M. Cabrera for defendant-appellant Iluminada Calonje. Salonga, Ordoñez and Associates for defendants-appellants Angel Baking and Arturo Baking. G.R. No. L-4975 May 16, 1969 Jose P. Laurel Law Office for defendant-appellant Simeon Rodriguez. J. Antonio Araneta, Claudio Teehankee and Manuel O. Chan for defendant- THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, appellant Federico Bautista. vs. Ismael T. Torres for defendant-appellant Felipe Engreso. LAMBERTO MAGBOO, ET AL., defendants-appellants. Meliton Soliman for defendant-appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr.

------

G.R. No. L-4976 May 16, 1969 ZALDIVAR, J.:

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, These are appeals from the joint decision of the Court of First Instance vs. of Manila in its Criminal Cases Nos. 14071, 14082, 14270, 14315 and SIMEON G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees. 14344.

------In Criminal Case No. 14071, the defendants were Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz y Adriano, G.R. No. L-4977 May 16, 1969 Rosario C. viuda de Santos and Angel Baking. The appeal from the decision in this case is now in G.R. No. L-4974 before this Court. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. In Criminal Case No. 14082, the defendants were Lamberto Magboo, HONOFRE MANGILA, ET AL., defendants-appellants. Nicanor Razon, Sr., Esteban Gonzales y la Torre, Marcos Medina, Cesario Torres, Rosenda Canlas Reyes, and Arturo Baking y Calma. The appeal from the decision in this case is now in G.R. No. L-4975 before this Court. ------In Criminal Case No. 14270, the defendants were Simeon Gutierrez y order to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, as follows, to Rodriguez, Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez, and Victorina Rodriguez y wit: Gutierrez, and Marciano de Leon. The appeal from the decision in this case is now in G.R. No. L-4976 before this Court. (1) On May 6, 1946, the 10th MPC Co. led by First Lt. Mamerto Lorenzo while on patrol duty in the barrio of Santa Monica, Aliaga, In Criminal Case No. 14315, the defendants were Honofre D. Mangila Nueva Ecija, was with evident premeditation on the part of the huks and Cenon Bungay y Bagtas. The appeal from the decision in this case is ambushed and treacherously attacked by a band of well-armed now in G.R. No. L-4977 before this Court. dissidents or rebels. Ten enlisted men of the MP company were killed. First Lt. Mamerto Lorenzo was captured and beheaded by In Criminal Case No. 14344 the defendants were Magno Pontillera the rebels. Bueno, Nicanor Capalad, Rosalina Quizon, Pedro Vicencio, Julia Mesina, Felipe Engreso, Elpidio Acuño Adime, Josefina Adelan y Abusejo, Conrado (2) On August 6, 1946, a group of more than 30 Huks under the Domingo, Aurora Garcia, and Naty Cruz. The appeal from the decision in leadership of Salvador Nolasco armed with guns of different this case is now in G.R. No. L-4978 before this Court. calibers raided the municipal building of Majayjay, Laguna. They were able to get one Garand, one carbine, one Thompson GMG, All the above-named defendants were charged with having committed and one pistol. They also took one typewriter and stationery (NR the complex crime of rebellion with murders and arsons under an identical Laguna, dated Sept. 2, 1946). information, filed in each of the five cases, which reads as follows: . (3) On April 10, 1947, 14 EM under the command of Lt. Pablo C. That on or about the 6th day of May, 1946, and for sometime prior and Cruz, while on their way to investigate a holdup in the barrio of San subsequent thereto and continuously up to the present time, in the City of Miguel na Munti, Talavera, Nueva Ecija were with evident Manila, the seat of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines which premeditation and treachery on the part of the Huks ambushed and the herein accused have intended to overthrow, and the place they have fired upon by Huks armed with 30-caliber rifles, machine guns, and chosen for that purpose as the nerve center of all their rebellious activities in grenades. Lt. Pablo Cruz and Pvt. Santiago Mercado were killed the different parts of the country, the said accused being then high ranking and 6 others were wounded. officers or otherwise members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (PKP) of which the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan" (HMB) otherwise or (4) On May 9, 1947, Huks numbering around 100 under Lomboy formerly known as the Hukbalahap (Huks), is its armed forces, having come and Liwayway raided the town proper of Laur and forced Municipal to an agreement and decided to commit the crime of rebellion, and therefore, Treasurer Jose A. Viloria to open the treasury safe and obtained conspiring and confederating together, acting with many more others whose therefrom more than P600. Policeman Fermin Sanchez was taken whereabouts and identities are still unknown up to the filing of this by the bandits with one Springfield rifle. Bandits robbed the towns information, and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, people of their money, personal belongings, rice and carabaos and feloniously promote, maintain, cause, direct and/or command the (WITR May 10, 1947). . Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB) or the Hukbalahaps (Huks) to rise publicly and take arms against the Government or otherwise participate (5) On August 19, 1947, Capt. Jose Gamboa, First Lt. Celestino therein for the purpose of overthrowing the same, as in fact the said Tiansec, and Second Lt. Marciano Lising, all from the 115th Co., Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan or Hukbalahaps (Huks) have risen publicly while riding in a jeep following an armored car, were treacherously and taken arms against the Government, by then and there making armed fired upon by a group of about 100 dissidents armed with automatic raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army rifles, Thompsons, and Garands and lined up on both sides of detachments, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in Highway No. 5 near the cemetery of San Miguel, Bulacan. First Lt. connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, by then and there Celestino Tiansec and Second Lt. Marciano Lising were killed. committing wanton acts of murder, spoilage, looting, arson, planned destruction of private and public buildings, to create and spread terrorism in (6) In or about the month of June, 1946, Alejandro Viernes, alias Counsel for defendants Jose Lava and Federico Bautista filed a Stalin, commander of Joint Forces No. 108 with about 180 men, motion to quash the information against them upon the grounds that the entered the town of Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, and raised their information did not conform to the prescribed form, that it charged the Huk flag for more than twenty-four hours. The Municipal officials did defendants with more than one offense, and that the court had no jurisdiction not offer any resistance because of the superiority in number of the over the offense charged. Also filed was a petition for provisional liberty Huks. After demanding from the civilians foodstuffs such as rice, under bail of 14 of the defendants, upon the grounds that (1) the evidence of chickens, goats, and carabaos, they left the town, admonishing the guilt was not strong and (2) the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus civilians always to support the Huk organization. The MP forces under Proclamation No. 210, dated October 22, 1950, by the President of under Capt. Ponciano Hanili, S-3, Capt. Federico C. Olares, then the Philippines was unconstitutional. Both motion and petition were denied Asst. S-3, of Nueva Ecija province, proceeded to Pantabangan with by the trial court in an order dated November 1, 1950. forces of the 112th MP Co. under Capt. Nicanor Garcia, to verify the information, but were not able to contact the dissidents at Upon agreement of the prosecution and the defense, and with the Pantabangan. They proceeded to the barrio of Marikit, between conformity of all the defendants, the five cases were tried jointly, with the Pantabangan and Laur, where they engaged some dissidents. understanding that each defendant could present his/her separate and When our forces were on their way home, they were pocketed by independent defenses. Notwithstanding the fact that several witnesses had the dissidents at the zigzag road, but owing to the initiative of our already testified in the first two cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 14071 and forces, they were able to extricate themselves from their precarious 14082) at the time the other three cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 14270, 14315 position and were able to fire their mortars and Cal. 50 and .30 and 14344) were filed, the defendants in the latter three cases expressed machineguns. Investigations made on the field of battle showed their conformity to a joint trial with the first two cases and agreed that the that the Huks suffered heavy casualties which was verified later to evidence already taken in the first two cases be reproduced in the latter have been seven cart loads of dead men. (Special Report, PC three cases. Nueva Ecija, dated February 23, 1948.) While the joint trial was being held, the prosecution, after a (7) Mrs. Aurora Aragon Quezon and party were with evident reinvestigation of the cases, moved that the case with respect to defendant premeditation and treachery on the part of the Huks ambushed at Julia Mesina be dismissed upon the ground of insufficiency of evidence. about 10:30, 28 April 49 by an undetermined number of dissidents After the trial and before the cases were submitted for decision, the under Commanders Viernes, Marzan, Lupo and Mulong at prosecution also moved for the dismissal of the case against defendant kilometer 62, barrio Salubsob, Bongabong, Nueva Ecija. PC escort Rosenda Canlas Reyes upon the ground that the evidence on record was exchanged fire with the dissidents. Patrol of the First Heavy not sufficient to support her conviction. Both motions were granted by the Weapons Company, 1st PC Battalion was dispatched to reinforce trial court. the PC escort. The following persons were killed: Mrs. Quezon, Baby Quezon, Mayor P. Bernardo, Major P. San Agustin, A. San Agustin, Lt. Lasam, Philip Buencamino III, and several soldiers. After the joint trial, the trial court rendered a joint decision in the five General Jalandoni and Capt. Manalang sustained slight wounds. cases, dated May 11, 1951.

(8) On August 25, 1950, Camp Macabulos, Tarlac, Tarlac was In Criminal Case No. 14071, the court found defendants FEDERICO attacked, raided and set fire to and among the casualties therein MACLANG alias Eto alias O. Beria aliasOlibas alias Mariano were Major D. E. Orlino, Capt. T. D. Cruz, Lt. G. T. Manawis, Lt. C. Cruz alias Ambrosio Reyes alias Manuel Santos; RAMON N. Tan, Lt. Eusebio Cabute, Sgt. Isabelo Vargas, Sgt. Bernardo ESPIRITU alias Johnny alias Ka Johnny; ILUMINADA Cadoy, Sgt. Bienvenido Bugay, Sgt. Samuel Lopez, Cpl. Vicente CALONJE alias Salome Cruz alias Luming; JOSE Awitan, Cpl. Ruiz Ponce, Cpl. Eugenio Ruelra, Pvt. Agustin LAVA alias Harry alias Felix Cruz aliasGaston Balatbat, Saturnino Guarin, E. Cabanban, Antonio Monte, Felix Silayan alias Gaston alias Gregorio Santayana alias Greg alias Gavino; Quirin, Gregoria Balcoco, Jose Mojica, Cornelio Melegan, Carlos FEDERICO M. BAUTISTA aliasFreddie alias Fred; ANGEL Bojade, Rodrigo Espejo and Rosario Sotto, a Red Cross nurse. BAKING alias Angel alias Boriz alias Bayan; and ROSARIO VDA. DE SANTOS aliasCharing, guilty as principals of the complex crime of rebellion Gutierrez y Rodriguez, and Marciano de Leon y Espiritu to reclusion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies, and pursuant to Article 248, perpetua; and defendant Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez to an indeterminate subsections 1 and 3 of the Revised Penal Code, in connection with its Article prison term of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) 48, sentenced defendants Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu and Iluminada years of reclusion temporal as maximum. These defendants were ordered to Calonje to the capital penalty of death; and defendants Jose Lava, Federico pay the costs. M. Bautista, Angel Baking, and Rosario C. Vda de Santos to reclusion perpetua. The defendants were also ordered to pay the costs in this case. The court acquitted defendant VICTORINA RODRIGUEZ Y GUTIERREZ alias Vicky alias Toring. In imposing the death penalty upon Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu and Iluminada Calonje, the court took into consideration not only the very In Criminal Case No. 14315, the court found defendants CENON nature of the crime committed but also the aggravating circumstance that the BUNGAY Y BAGTAS alias Ruping aliasCommander Ruping alias Bagtas said three defendants secured the aid of persons under 15 years of age in and HONOFRE D. MANGILA alias Onofre Mangila alias Tommy alias Miller the commission of the crime. guilty as principals of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies, and pursuant to the provision of Article 48 of the In Criminal Case No. 14082, the court found defendants CESAREO Revised Penal Code the said defendant Cenon Bungay y Bagtas and TORRES alias Cesareo Yacat, alias Leoalias Leodones; ARTURO BAKING Honofre D. Mangila were sentenced to death. In arriving at this decision the Y CALMA alias Arturo C. Baking alias A. C. Baking alias Arturo Calma court took into consideration the gravity of their participation in the said Bakingalias Eduardo Santos, and MARCOS MEDINA alias Hiwara guilty as complex crime, the first being a Huk squadron commander, who led and took principals of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and part in several raids and ambuscades conducted by the HMB and caused robberies and sentenced the said defendants to reclusion perpetua. The the killing of Major Leopoldo Alicbusan of the PC Detachment at San Pablo court also found defendants LAMBERTO MAGBOO alias Berting alias Eddie City, Laguna, and the second (Mangila) being a member of the powerful and NICANOR RAZON, SR., alias Elias Ruvi, as accomplice in the Central Committee of the Communist Party in the Philippines, which elects commission of the said crime and were sentenced to an indeterminate the Politburo members. The said defendants were also ordered to pay the prison term of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) costs. years of reclusion temporal as maximum. In Criminal Case No. 14344, the court found defendant MAGNO The court did not find sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the PONTILLERA BUENO alias Magno Buenoalias Mamerto defendant ESTEBAN GONZALES Y LA TORRE, alias Esteban La Torre Banyaga alias Narding, guilty as principal of the complex crime of rebellion Gonzales, either as principal or accomplice in the commission of the said with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies and sentenced the said crime. The court, however, found him guilty as member of the Communist defendant to death. The court, likewise found defendants ROSALINA V. Party in the Philippines, which is an illegal association, and pursuant to QUIZON alias Regina Quiambao; PEDRO VICENCIO alias Pedring; FELIPE Article 147 of the Revised Penal Code, the said defendant was sentenced to ENGRESO alias Ipe; JOSEFINO ADELAN Y ABUSEJO alias Fely; ELPIDIO four (4) months of arresto mayor. All the defendants were ordered to pay ACUÑO ADIME alias Rolly, alias Rolly Enriquez alias Rol aliasPidiong, and costs. NATY CRUZ alias Natie alias Naty alias Spring, and CONRADO DOMINGO alias Adong guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplices in In Criminal Case No. 14270, the court found defendants SIMEON the commission of the said crime and sentenced the said Rosalina Quizon GUTIERREZ Y RODRIGUEZ alias Simeon Rodriguez alias Sammy alias S. and Pedro Vicencio to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision G. R. alias Lakindanum; MARClANO DE LEON Y ESPIRITU alias Marciano mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal as E. de Leon alias Marcial alias Mar, guilty as principals in the commission of maximum; and Felipe Engreso, Josefina Adelan and Conrado Domingo to the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies; an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years of prision correccional as and JULITA RODRIGUEZ Y minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayoras maximum. The last three GUTIERREZ alias Judith alias Juling alias Juliet aliasJulie, as accomplice in accused were declared entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of the commission of the said crime, and sentenced defendants Simeon minority, they being under 18 years of age. With respect to defendants Elpidio Acuño Adime and Naty Cruz, they Upon petition by the Deputy Chief, Military Intelligence Service (MIS) being under 16 years of age, further proceedings were suspended and of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, this Court, by order of March 7, pursuant to the provision of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, the court 1952, appointed the MIS the custodian of the exhibits and documents that ordered that the said Elpidio Acuño Adime be committed to the Boys' were presented as evidence in these five criminal cases before the trial Training School and Naty Cruz to the Girls' Training School at Mandaluyong, court. This step was taken because those documents and exhibits were Rizal under the custody and supervision of the Commissioner of Social needed also as evidence in other courts in the prosecution of other members Welfare or his authorized representatives until they reach the age of majority of the HMB (Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan). Later, by order of April 14, or until further orders of the court. The Commissioner of Social Welfare was 1955, this Court appointed the Staff Judge Advocate of the Philippine directed to submit to the court every four months a written report on the good Constabulary the custodian of the same documents and exhibits. Those or bad conduct of the said minors, on the moral and intellectual progress documents and exhibits were kept at the headquarters of the Philippine made by them during the period of their confinement in said institutions. Constabulary at Camp Crame, Quezon City. On September 10, 1958 the headquarters of the PC was destroyed by fire, and all those documents and The court acquitted defendants NICANOR CAPALAD alias Canor and exhibits were burned. Upon a petition for the reconstitution of the said AURORA GARCIA alias Laring. documents and exhibits, this Court appointed Deputy Clerk of Court Bienvenido Ejercito as Commissioner to receive evidence for the reconstitution of those documents and exhibits. The Commissioner, after due All the defendants except Nicanor Capalad and Aurora Garcia were hearing, submitted his report, dated October 6, 1959, recommending that the ordered to pay the costs. documents and exhibits that were burned be declared reconstituted by the photostatic copies of the originals of those documents and exhibits. The In imposing the capital penalty on Magno Pontillera Bueno the Court Commissioner stated in his report that those photostatic copies were duly took into account not only his being a member of the powerful Central identified during the hearings on the reconstitution. Over the objection of Committee of the Communist Party jointly with Federico Maclang and counsels for the defendants-appellants, this Court approved the report of the Honofre Mangila but also his being an instructor on Military Tactics in the Commissioner. "Stalin University", the military training school for Huks in the mountains. Counsels for the appellants were allowed by the Court all the time that The rights to file a civil action to recover indemnity for the death of the they needed to prepare the briefs for the appellants. The last brief for the victims of the murders specifically referred to in these cases were reserved appellants was filed on January 22, 1963. The Solicitor General filed the to the heirs of the said victims. brief for the appellee (People of the Philippines) on June 29, 1963. These appeals were set for hearing on oral argument on August 28, 1963. On that Thus, of the original 31 defendants in these five criminal cases, five date counsel for some of the defendants-appellants argued the case for their were acquitted, namely: Julia Mesina, Rosenda Canlas Reyes, Victorina clients; and counsels for other defendants-appellants were given a period of Rodriguez y Gutierrez, Nicanor Capalad and Aurora Garcia. Of the 26 who 20 days to submit a memorandum in lieu of oral argument. The Solicitor were convicted, all appealed to this Court except defendant Esteban General was likewise granted leave to submit a reply memorandum within Gonzales la Torre. Later, defendants Rosalina Quizon, Elpidio Acuño Adime, 20 days from the receipt of the copies of the appellants' memoranda. Upon Josefina Adelan Abusejo, Conrado Domingo and Naty Cruz withdrew their the filing of the memoranda these cases were considered submitted for appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, defendants Julita Rodriguez y decision. Gutierrez and Magno Pontillera Bueno died. The appeals now before this Court, therefore, involve only 18 defendants, namely: Jose Lava, Federico These cases have been pending for decision in this Court since Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Rosario Vda. de October, 1963, and it would seem that this Court has not acted with dispatch Santos, Angel Baking, Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Marcos Medina, in the disposition of these cases. It must be known, however, that this Court Cesareo Torres, Arturo Baking, Simeon G. Rodriguez, Marciano de Leon, has been swamped with cases appealed from the lower courts and from Honofre Mangila, Cenon Bungay, Pedro Vicencio, and Felipe Engreso. administrative bodies and officials, as provided by law, and despite the arduous labors by the members of this Court the docket of this Court has been, and still is, clogged. There are numerous criminal cases appealed to this Court ahead of these five cases. Certainly the appellants in those earlier regarding organizations and tactics, and on appeals brought before it; and it appealed criminal cases deserve the same concern from this Court that the elects the members of the Central Committee (CC). The Central Committee, appellants in these five cases expect for themselves. The record of these which is the highest authority when the National Congress is not in session, five cases, consisting of the "rollos", the transcript of the stenographic notes enforces the Constitution, implements the policies formulated by the National taken during the trial and the documentary exhibits, is so voluminous that Congress, promulgates Rules and regulations, supervises all political and when piled vertically it would stand almost three feet high. The record has to organizational work of the party, takes charge of financial matters and be meticulously examined and studied by the members of this Court, renders an accounting thereof to the National Congress, and elects the working as a collegiate body. In deciding cases, this Court inclines more to General Secretary (SEC) and all the members of the Politburo. The Politburo careful study and deliberation rather than to dispatch. (PB) is the real executive body of the party, and is responsible for the execution of the powers and duties of the Central Committee when the latter Existence and activities of the CPP and HMB is not in session. The General Secretary and the Politburo are responsible to the Central Committee for all their decisions and actions. Then there are departments, bureaus, committees and other organizational units. There is We have thoroughly examined the testimonial and documentary the National Education Department (NED), the educational Department evidence in the present cases, and We find it conclusively proved, as did the (ED), the Organization Bureau (OB), the Organizational Department (OD), lower court, that as of the year 1950 when elements of the police and armed the District Organization Committee (DOC) the Peasants' Organization (PO), forces of the Government arrested the defendants in these five cases there the Trade Union Department (TUD), the Sanggunian Tanggulang Baryo was already a nationwide organization of the Communist Party of the (STB), the Military Committee (MC), the General Headquarters (GHQ), the Philippines (CPP), and that said party had a well-organized plan to Regional Command (RECO), the Field Command (FC), the Battalion (BN), overthrow the Philippine Government by armed struggle and to establish in the Company, (CO), the Platoon (PLN), and the Squad (SQD). There is also the Philippines a communist form of government similar to that of Soviet the National Finance Committee (NFC) in charge of the financial matters of Russia and Red China. The Communist Party of the Philippines had as its the Party, the RECO Finance Committee (RFC), the District Finance military arm the organization known as the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Committee (DFC), the Field Command Supply Officer (FC-G-4), the Bayan" (HMB), otherwise or formerly known as the Hukbalahaps (Huks). It is Battalion Supply Officer (Bn-G-4), the Company Supply Officer (Co-G-4), the established that the rebellious activities of the HMB, and the commission of Platoon Supply Officer (Pln-S-4), the National Courier Division (NCD), the common crimes in different parts of the country by the HMB, were directed Reco Courier Division (RCB), the Central Post (CP), and Field Command by the Communist Party of the Philippines through its Politburo (PB) and/or Courier (FC-Courier). Secretariat (SEC). The Politburo and/or the Secretariat gave orders to the field through its general headquarters (GHQ) and its regional commands (RECOS), and reports to the Politburo and/or Secretariat were made The Secretariat provisionally assumed the functions of the GHQ which regarding the activities of the HMB, giving accounts of the sorties or was abolished by the Politburo in its conference in January 1950. The ambushes and attacks against elements of the police, the Philippine Secretariat alone has final authority to impose the death penalty in court Constabulary and the army, and of killings, lootings and destruction's of martial cases where SECCOM (National Committee) cadres are involved. property. It is also established that the plan of the Communist Party was not Several SEC transmissions to the Politburo members assigned to regional only to overthrow the Philippine Government but also to kill officials of the commands indicate that the Secretariat discussed plans of attack by the Government and private individuals who refused to cooperate with the HMB, distributes forces, and supplies intelligence information. rebels, and orders to this effect were transmitted to the HMB. There is the National Courier (or Communication) Division (NCD), Among the documentary evidence presented during the trial is the which is in charge of the communication system of the CPP, and the Constitution of the Communist Party of the Philippines, one of the distribution of supplies to the different regional commands in the field. There documents seized in one of the raids when some of the appellant were is a Special Warfare Division, in charge of operating technological warfare arrested. In this document it is shown that the CPP has a National Congress against the enemy such as the use of homemade bombs, molotov cocktails, (NC) which is the highest Authority in the party. The National Congress land mine traps, etc. There is the Technical Group (TG) which attends to the formulates the policies of the party, and determines the functions of the party manufacture of homemade firearms and other weapons. This group includes and of the standing committees; it renders decisions on all problems chemists and engineers. Then there is the National Intelligence Division, in charge of gathering military intelligence, as well as political and economic mountain fastnesses, where trained instructors gave lectures and taught intelligence. lessons in the principles of Karl Marx, Frederich Engels, Joseph Stalin and Nicolai Lenin. . For purposes of regional commands, the Philippines was divided geographically into ten regions in order to facilitate the political, military, and As has been stated, the CPP has an armed force, which is the HMB. economic administration by the Communist Party of the Philippines. Those The predecessor of the HMB was the HUKBALAHAP, an organization regional commands are as follows: . created by the party during the Japanese occupation to resist the Japanese forces. Upon liberation of the Philippines, the members of the Hukbalahap RECO 1 — Nueva Ecija, Pangasinan and lower Mt. Province. continued their activities, the organization was renamed HMB, and its members were indoctrinated in communistic principles. The members of the HMB are known as "Huks". RECO 2 — Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales and Bataan. The tie-up between the CPP and the HMB is established beyond RECO 3 — Bulacan and Rizal, except the towns under City doubt by the evidence. It is shown that the heads of the CPP were in regular Command. communication with the leaders of the HMB, and the raids, ambushes, burnings, lootings and killings were planned and authorized by the CPP. RECO 4 — Laguna, Batangas, Quezon and Cavite. Appellant Federico Maclang, who is a member of the Politburo, in his testimony, admitted that the HMB is the armed force of the CPP. Luis Taruc, RECO 5 — Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, Albay and who at the time was the head of the HMB, participated in the meetings and Sorsogon. deliberations of the CPP. Some instances may be cited: (1) When Luis Taruc, leader of the HMB, was interviewed by Manuel Manahan representing the newspaper "Bagong Buhay", sometime in July 1950, the said interview RECO 6 — Panay, Negros, Cebu, Samar, Leyte, Bohol and was planned, approved and authorized by the Secretariat of the Communist Palawan. Party. The purpose of the interview was to make Taruc declare about the true status of the leadership in the HMB and the CPP, and belie reports of RECO 7 — Davao, Lanao, Cotabato, Zamboanga and division among the leaders; (2) When appellant Simeon Rodriguez, a Agusan. member of the Politburo and a ranking member of the National Finance Committee, was arrested at 268 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila on October 18, 1950, there were found in his possession 65 P100-bills and 60 P50-bills RECO 8 — Cagayan Valley provinces and Nueva Viscaya. and also P145 circulating notes and $312 in paper currency whose serial numbers (except two dollars) tallied with the serial numbers of part of the RECO 9 — Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, Abra, and La Union. money (amounting to more than P80,000) that was taken by the Huks from the safe of the office of the Provincial Treasurer when they raided Sta. Cruz, CITY COMMAND — Manila, Malabon, Caloocan, Navotas, Laguna, on August 26, 1950. Provincial Treasurer Balbino Kabigting of San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, Mandaluyong, San Juan, Laguna had a record of the serial numbers of the money taken by the Huks, Marikina, Pasig, Guadalupe, Pasay, Baclaran, Parañaque, and he even issued a warning to the public about the loss of the money — Muntinglupa and Alabang. mentioning in the warning the serial numbers of the money taken. There are documents showing that this money taken from the provincial treasury of Laguna was the subject of communications between Luis Taruc and The Communist Party of the Philippines has a flag, colored red, with appellant Federico Maclang and other members of the Secretariat. the symbols of the hammer and the sickle (Exhibit A), and a newspaper organ called "TITIS". In the general plan to indoctrinate the masses into communistic ideas and principles, communist schools — some of them Written articles and official publications of the CPP and HMB, which called "Stalin University" — were set up in a number of places in the were presented as evidence, show the tie-up between the CPP and HMB. Following are some excerpts from those publications: As the situation now stands, it can be assumed that the HMB In quick succession, the Party celebrated the eighth under Communist leadership, already enjoys a quantitative edge anniversary of the HMB by the coordinated military operations from over the Nationalista Party ... (Exh. K-211, p. 7, "Struggle against the far north down to southern Luzon ... (Exh. O-33, Folder of Awaitism". Emphasis supplied). Exhibits, Vol. V)

The enemy was caught by surprise. The CPP and the HMB it The Secretariat issued the following instructions in connection with the is leading scored a tremendous political victory ... (Exh. O-33, May 1, 1950 (Labor Day) attack: "Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP." Emphasis supplied) ... Repeat March 29 simultaneous attacks to time with May 1 Documentary and testimonial evidence establish that the various raids celebration to convince the workers of the peasants' unity in and ambuscades perpetrated by the HMB were planned, directed and struggle with them. Party and HMB messages to be sent. (Exh. O- supported by the CPP. Thus, in the "Milestones in the History of the CPP", 313, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. V) written by appellant Jose Lava, it is stated that at the enlarged Politburo conference of January, 1950, it was decided to intensify HMB military Replying to said order (Exh. 0-313), the Politburo representative of operations for political and organizational purposes. The widespread raids Regional Command No. 3 wrote Gaston (Jose Lava of the Secretariat) and and attacks on the occasion of the 8th HMB anniversary (March 28-29, said: 1950) was decided at the PB conference: Ukol sa Plan for May lst OK. We will try our best to The conference specifically decided to launch coordinated accomplish our part without hesitation. (Exh. M-179, Folder of military operations on the occasion of the eight anniversary of the Exhibits, Vol. III). HMB. (Exh. 249, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. V.) The May 1, 1950 attack was followed by simultaneous attacks by the The CPP ordered the HMB to fight the Philippine Constabulary and HMB on August 26, 1950, in commemoration of the first "Cry of Balintawak." attack government installations. Thus testified Benjamin Advincula, a former These attacks were again decided, planned and directed by the Communist high ranking HMB member, who said that when he was Secretary of RECO Party of the Philippines as shown by transmissions from the Secretariat to No. 4, he received orders for transmission to the HMB to fight the Philippine the Politburo members in the field. (Exhs. O-93; par. 2; O-102, par. 6). The Constabulary. Attacks by the HMB were also reported to the CPP. The attacks on August 26, 1950 were also ordered by the Secretariat, because accomplishments, for instance, of RECO 2 during the attacks at dawn on the evidence shows that the Secretariat required submission of complete March 29, 1950 were reported in Enteng's (Luis Taruc) letter to the report thereof, and reports were in fact submitted by Taruc (Enteng) on Secretariat on April 1, 1950. This letter reported the ambush and liquidation September 9, 1950 (Exhs. O-638, par. 8; O-278). of Captain Dumlao and others; the attack and burning of the CG (Civilian Guard) camp at Manibong, Porac, and the capture of arms and ammunitions thereat; the losses on the enemy side; the burning of 12 houses and the The Communist Party also planned the attack for November 7, 1950, liquidation of 2 spies at Mabalacat, Pampanga. A similar report was the 20th anniversary of the CPP, which required bigger operations than the furnished by a certain Pedring of RECO 2 in a letter to Eto (Federico attack of August 26, because towns were to be captured, barracks and jails Maclang) dated April 2, 1950. were to be raided and political enemies were to be liquidated. The SEC assigned and allocated the forces to different phases and places of operations. In hand-written notes identified by expert witness to have been It was, in fact, the Communist Party that celebrated the eighth written by appellant Jose Lava, the following appears in connection with the anniversary of the HMB, as appears in the Communist Party document plans for November 7: "Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP" in which we read about the simultaneous attacks of the HMB on March 29, 1950 the following: ... Coordinated — Core: Capture of towns near Manila, but near Mt. bases — Coordination of RECO 2, 3 & 4, Rizal — Cavite. Pol liquidation in City. Bringing fight near strategic political, military The Communist Party of the Philippines is leading the armed and economic centers Supporting RECO 1 in ILOCOS & struggle for national liberation and the establishment of a New CAGAYAN. RECO 5 in BICOL & RECO 6 in VISAYAS. (Exh. O-12.) Democracy in order to crush the power of the exploiters, achieve power for the exploited classes, and who are disposed to accept As We have stated, the primordial objective of the Communist Party of the new society ..." (Exh. O-119 "Accounting for the Peoples' Fund the Philippines and of its armed force, the HMB, was to overthrow the Received and Spent to Finance the Revolution"; see also Exhs. K- Philippine Government by armed struggle. To attain this objective, the CPP 12 (u), N-570-573, M-1574, K-244, O-749-56, Documents approved also envisioned the following expansion: of the cadres from 3,600 in July, by SEC in its meeting on February 15, 1950. Exh. O-312, par. 3. 1950 to 56,000 in September 1951; of the party members from 10,900 in See Vol. III, Folder of Exhibits) July, 1950 to 172,800 in September, 1951; of HMB members from 10,800 in July, 1950 to 172,800 in September, 1951; and of the organized masses ... The Communist Party marks the 54th anniversary of the from 30,000 in July, 1950 to 2,430,000 in September, 1951. CRY OF BALINTAWAK calling on the people to join the HMB in annihilating the enemy today, no different from the enemy The Communist Party declared the existence of a revolutionary denounced by Bonifacio. (Exh. M-1524, Vol. III, Folder of Exhibits). situation in November, 1949 and went underground. This appears in the following excerpts from documents that were presented as evidence during We find that the criminal acts, consisting of attacks against Philippine the trial. Constabulary, murders, robberies, kidnapping, arson, etc. alleged in the information are duly proved by evidence presented during the trial. It is Quickly sizing up the existence of a revolutionary situation, noteworthy that the appellants did not attempt to disprove the evidence arising from the merger ... of the crises of production due to the regarding the commission of these crimes. Besides those alleged in the imperialist-feudal domination of our economy, and the information, there were other acts of attacks against the Philippine parliamentary crises due to fraud and terrorism in the 1949 Constabulary, murders, robberies, etc. that were committed by the Huks that elections, the CPP openly called on the people to overthrow the are proved by the evidence — also not disproved by the appellants — as Liberal Party puppets of the American imperialists. (Exh. O-32, follows: "Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP", Exh. O-12 [hh]) (1) On March 29, 1950, a band of armed Huks carrying a In the Philippines, the CPP has already declared the communist flag raided San Pablo, Laguna. An encounter with the existence of a revolutionary situation; and it is concentrating all its 27th PC Company ensued, and several members of the PC were energies towards the hastening of the maturity of the revolutionary injured. The Huks looted several Chinese stores. situation into a crisis leading to the overthrow of the imperialist puppets and the achievement of the NEW DEMOCRACY. (Exh. O- (2) At about 3 o'clock in the morning of August 26, 1950, 949, "Strategy and Tactics," Exhs. O-126-141) . approximately 400 Huk dissidents armed with machine guns and rifles attacked Santa Cruz, Laguna. The cashier of the office of the The CPP has declared the existence of a revolutionary Provincial Treasurer was forced at gun point, to open the vault from situation; since November, 1949, as a result of the merger of the which the Huks took more than P80,600. The Huks also took crisis in production of our imperialist feudal dominated economy typewriters and office supplies from the office of the Provincial and the crisis of the burgeois parliamentarism ... Since then, the Treasurer. The Huks, after forcing the warden to give the keys, CPP went completely underground, and openly called on the opened the provincial jail and released the prisoners. The provincial people for the armed overthrow of the power of American jail was later burned. The Huks looted houses and took rice, imperialism and its allies in the Philippines exercised through its cigarettes and clothes, and burned five buildings. puppets ... (Exh. O-65) (3) On March 29, 1950, several Huks raided San Mateo, Rizal, Mayor Collantes saw a red flag hoisted by the dissidents. Two of opened the safe in the municipal building and took money. They the Huk dissidents were killed. also got food and medicines from the townspeople. Issues raised by appellants (4) On August 28, 1950, Huks attacked the municipal building of Arayat, Pampanga, and forced the municipal mayor at the point of a The appellants, in their defense in the present appeals, have raised gun to give P3,629.31 in cash and some documentary stamps. issues that are common to them all, and also issues particular to each one of Killed during the incident was one Atty. Samia. them. The issues particular to individual appellants will be discussed at the latter part of this opinion when we deal with their respective appeals. (5) On March 28, 1950, about 80 to 100 Huks attacked San Rafael, Montalban, killing 4 and wounding all soldiers. After the attack, the 1. The appellants are charged with having committed the crime of Huks left communist propaganda leaflets. rebellion with murders and arsons. The trial court declared some of them guilty as principals, and some as accomplices, in the commission of the (6) On August 30, 1949, upon receiving a report that there was a crime of rebellion complexed with multiple murder, arsons and robberies. concentration of Huks at Kamog, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, Lt. Restituto A. Bisda organized a patrol of 20 enlisted men. On the The law pertinent to the determination of the criminal responsibility of way the patrol was fired upon by the Huks. After the encounter, one the appellants are Articles 134, 135, and 136 of Revised Penal Code, as Huk member was found dead and from his body were taken several follows: . documents. ART 134. Rebellion or insurrection — How committed. — The (7) On October 15 and 17, 1950, P.C. Lt. Velasquez led three crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and platoons of soldiers to the southwestern slope of Mount Malipuño at taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing Lipa City upon receipt of a report that about 200 Huks were from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of gathered in that place. While climbing the mountain they were the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval suddenly attacked and fired upon by the dissidents killing one or other armed forces, or of depriving the Chief Executive or the soldier and wounding others. When they retaliated, the Huks Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or retreated leaving behind a wounded Huk. The Huks abandoned prerogatives. their hideouts in the place. Upon inspection, Lt. Velasquez found a hut with several blackboards, papers and other school supplies inside and a red hammer-and-sickle flag displayed on the wall with ART. 135. Penalty for rebellion or insurrection. — Any person letters "STALIN U" (Stalin University), which indicated that the place who promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion or insurrection, or is one of the military schools for the Huks. (The flag was produced who, while holding any public office or employment takes part in court and marked Exhibit "A" for the prosecution. This flag had therein, engaging in war against the forces of the Government, been identified by a witness for the prosecution, a former Huk destroying property or committing serious violence, exacting Colonel named Benjamin Advincula, to be the official flag of the contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for HMB in their military training school in the mountains wherein he which they have been appropriated, shall suffer the penalty of had also undergone Huk military training.) prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 20,000 pesos.

(8) At about midnight on March 29, 1950, Huk dissidents entered Any person merely participating or executing the commands the town of Tanauan, Batangas. According to George Collantes, the of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its municipal mayor, there was shooting in the town, and later the minimum period. industrial center and market were burned after they were raided. When the rebellion or insurrection shall be under the single or similar intentional overt acts, different or similar but command of unknown leaders, any person who in fact directed the distinct, and for that reason, it may be considered one single others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents continuous offense. (Guinto vs. Veluz, 77 Phil. 801, 44 Off. Gaz., issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the 909.)" (People vs. Pacheco, 93 Phil. 521.). rebels shall be deemed the leader of such rebellion. Inasmuch as the acts specified in said Article 135 constitute, ART. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or we repeat, one single crime, it follows necessarily that said acts insurrection. — The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or offer no occasion for the application of Article 48, which requires insurrection shall be punished, respectively, by prision therefor the commission of, at least, two crimes. Hence, this court correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not has never in the past, convicted any person of the "complex crime exceed 5,000 pesos, and by prision correccional in its medium of rebellion with murder". What is more, it appears that in every period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos. one of the cases of rebellion published in the Philippine Reports, the defendants were convicted of simple rebellion, although they It is the common contention of the appellants that the trial court erred had killed several persons, sometimes peace officers. (U.S. vs. in declaring that the crime committed by the appellants was that of "rebellion Lagnason, 3 Phil. 472; U.S. vs. Baldello, 3 Phil. 509; U.S. vs. Ayala, complexed with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies." 6 Phil. 151; League vs. People, 73 Phil. 155)

We uphold the contention of the appellants. The question, of whether x x x x x x x x x 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, is now There is one other reason — and a fundamental one at that settled. In the case of People vs. Hernandez, etc., et al., 1 this Court held that — why Article 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in the case the crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with other common crimes. The at bar. If murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two accused in the Hernandez case were charged, as are appellants in the crimes punished separately (assuming that this could be done), the instant cases, "with the crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely: robberies." This Court ruled that: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding 12 years the words of said Article 135, is by "engaging in war against the of prision mayor; and (2) for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal forces of the government" and "committing serious violence" in the in its maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying prosecution of said "war". These expressions imply everything that circumstances present. In other words, in the absence of war connotes, namely; resort to arms, requisition of property and aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, imposed upon him. However, under Article 48, said penalty would damage to property, physical injuries and loss of life, and the have to be meted out to him, even in the absence of a single hunger, illness and unhappiness that war leaves in its wake — aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in except that very often, it is worse than war in the international conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable sense, for it involves internal struggle, a fight between brothers, to the movant. with a bitterness and a passion or ruthlessness seldom found in a contest between strangers. Being within the purview of "engaging in Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was enacted for the war" and "committing serious violence", said resort to arms, with purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a the resulting impairment or destruction of life and property, penalty more severe than that which would be proper if the several constitutes not two or more offenses, but only onecrime — that of acts performed by him were punished separately. In the words of rebellion plain and simple. Thus, for instance, it has been held that Rodriguez Navarro: "the crime of treason may be committed" by executing either a La unificacion de penas en los casos de concurso as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends described in de delitos a que hace referencia este articulo (75 del Article 134, becomes absorbed in the crime of rebellion, and cannot Codigo de 1932), esta basado francamente en el be regarded or penalized as distinct crimes in themselves. In law principio pro reo. (II Doctrina Penal del Tribunal Supremo they are part and parcel of the rebellion itself, and cannot be de España, p. 2168.) considered as giving rise to a separate crime, that, under Article 48 of the Code, would constitute a complex one with that of rebellion. ... It is evident to us that the policy of our statutes on rebellion is to consider all acts committed in furtherance thereof — as And in People vs. Aquino, et al., L-13789, June 30, 1960, 57 O.G. specified in Article 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code — as 9180, this Court said: constituting onlyone crime, punishable with one single penalty — namely, that prescribed in said Article 135. .... On the other hand, from the very testimony of Filomeno Casal, another witness for the prosecution, it can be gathered that ... In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations of the the one who killed or ordered the killing of Mendoza was amended information against defendant-appellant Amado V. Commander Silva who, according to Casal, ordered Mendoza to lie Hernandez, the murders, arsons and robberies described therein down and when the latter refused he shot him. If we are to believe are mere ingridients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by the testimony of this witness the only one responsible for the said defendants, as means "necessary" (4) for the perpetration Mendoza's death is Commander Silva for there is nothing to show of said offense of rebellion; that the crime charged in the that his companions who were under his command knew that his aforementioned amended information is, therefore, simple rebellion, design was to liquidate him. At any rate, since it appears that the not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and killing was committed not because of any personal motive on the robberies; that the maximum penalty imposable under such charge part of the accused but merely in pursuance of the huk movement cannot exceed twelve (12) years of prision mayor and a fine of to overthrow the duly constituted authorities, the proper charge P20,000; and that, in conformity with the policy of this court in against them would be rebellion and not murder .... dealing with accused persons amenable to a similar punishment, said defendant may be allowed to bail." The foregoing ruling was The reason for this was already given by this Court in People vs. adhered to in the decisions of this Court in the cases of People vs. Hernandez, et al., supra, to wit: Geronimo, G.R. No. L-8936, October 23, 1956; People vs. Togonon, G.R. No. L-8926, June 29, 1957; People vs. Romagosa, G.R. No. L-8476, February 28, 1958; and People vs. In short, political crimes are those directly aimed against the Santos, G.R. No. L-11813, September 17, 1958. 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 In People vs. Geronimo, supra, this Court further elaborated on the homicide, is perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the Hernandez ruling, as follows: allegiance "to the Government the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof," then said offense becomes stripped of its As in treason, where both intent and overt act are necessary, "common" complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the the crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of both the crime of rebellion, the former acquires the political character of the armed uprising for the purposes expressed in Article 134 of the latter."2 Revised Penal Code, and the overt acts of violence described in the first paragraph of Article 135. That both purpose and overt acts The Solicitor General, in behalf of the appellee, The People of the are essential components of one crime, and that without either of Philippines, asks this Court to reexamine the ruling in the Hernandez case them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist is shown by the "based not only on grounds of public policy but also to interpret the law in absence of any penalty attached to Article 134. It follows, therefore, order to have justice and adequacy into the Philippine law on rebellion on that any or all of the acts described in Article 135, when committed the basis of prevailing jurisprudential schools of thought such as the sociological theory on the natural law doctrine and ... the policy science Such evils as may result from the failure of the policy of the theory." 3 This Court has given this plea of the Solicitor General a very law punishing the offense to dovetail with the policy of the law serious consideration, but after a mature deliberation the members of this enforcing agencies in the apprehension and prosecution of the Court have decided to maintain that ruling in the Hernandez case and to offenders are matters which may be brought to the attention of the adhere to what this Court said in that case, as follows: departments concerned. The judicial branch cannot amend the former in order to suit the latter. The Court cannot indulge in judicial The Court is conscious of the keen interest displayed, and legislation without violating the principles of separation of powers, the considerable efforts exerted, by the Executive Department in and, hence, undermining the foundation of our republican system. the apprehension and prosecution of those believed to be guilty of In short, we cannot accept the theory of the prosecution without crimes against public order, of the lives lost, and the time and causing much bigger harm than that which would allegedly result money spent in connection therewith, as well as of the possible from the adoption of the opposite view. implications or repercussions in the security of the State. The careful consideration given to said policy of a coordinate and co- 2. The appellants also contend that the informations against them charge equal branch of the Government is reflected in the time consumed, more than one offense, in violation of Section 12, Rule 106 of the old Rules the extensive and intensive research work undertaken, and the of Court (now Section 12, Rule 117 of the new Rules of Court). This many meetings held by the members of the court for the purpose of contention has no merit. A reading of the informations reveals the theory of elucidating on the question under discussion and of settling the the prosecution that the accused had committed the complex crime of same. rebellion with murders, robberies and arsons, enumerating therein eight counts regarding specific acts of murder, robbery and arson. These acts The role of the judicial department under the Constitution is, were committed, to quote the information, "to create and spread terrorism in however, clear — to settle justiciable controversies by the order to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose", that is, to application of the law. And the latter must be enforced as it is — overthrow the Government. The appellants are not charged with the with all its flaws and defects, not affecting its validity — not as the commission of each and every crime specified in the counts as crimes judges would have it. In other words, the courts must apply the separate and distinct from that of rebellion. The specific acts are alleged policy of the State as set forth in its laws, regardless of the wisdom merely to complete the narration of facts, thereby specifying the way the thereof. crime of rebellion was allegedly committed, and to apprise the defendants of the particular facts intended to be proved as the basis for a finding of conspiracy and/or direct participation in the commission of the crime of x x x x x x x x x rebellion. 4 An information is not duplicitous if it charges several related acts, all of which constitute a single offense, although the acts may in themselves Thus the settled policy of our laws on rebellion, since the be distinct offenses. 5 Moreover, this Court has held that acts of murder, beginning of the century, has been one of decided leniency, in arson, robbery, physical injuries, etc. are absorbed by, and form part and comparison with the laws in force during the Spanish regime. Such parcel of, the crime of rebellion if committed as a means to or in furtherance policy has not suffered the slightest alteration. Although the of the rebellion charged. 6 Government has, for the past five or six years, adopted a more vigorous course of action in the apprehension of violators of said 3. Another contention of appellants is that the trial court, the Court of First law and in their prosecution, the established policy of the State, as Instance of Manila, did not have jurisdiction to try the cases against them regards the punishment of the culprits has remained unchanged because the acts enumerated in the eight counts in the information were since 1932. It is not for us to consider the merits and demerits of committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This contention is such policy. This falls within the province of the policy-making also without merit. Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that branch of the Government — the Congress of the Philippines ... the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province where the offense was committed or any one of the essential x x x x x x x x x ingredients thereof took place. The informations allege that Manila is the seat of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines which the appellants sought to overthrow and that Manila was chosen by the accused evidence. A photostatic copy of an original document is admissible as a as the nerve center of all their rebellious activities in the different parts of the secondary evidence of the contents of the originals and they constitute country. While it is true that the murders, robberies and arsons alleged in the evidence of a satisfactory nature. 7 The record shows that the photostatic information were committed outside the City of Manila, in the informations it copies of the destroyed exhibits, which were presented before the is alleged that it was in Manila where the accused had decided and agreed Commissioner during the reconstitution proceedings, were taken before the to commit the crime of rebellion and it was in Manila where they promoted, originals were destroyed by fire. The photostatic copies had been compared maintained, caused, directed and/or commanded the HMB to rise publicly with the originals, properly checked and recorded, by the officer who was the and take arms against the Government, as in fact the HMB had risen custodian of the exhibits. publicly, making armed raids, sorties, ambushes, and committing wanton acts of murder, arson, looting, etc. An essential ingredient of the crime of The certified typewritten copies made from the original documents that which appellants were charged, therefore, took place in Manila. were hand written in ink are also secondary evidence of the contents of the latter. Sgt. Aquilino Tingco, assigned as assistant to the document officer in 4. Some of the appellants contend that their constitutional rights were charge of the court of exhibits in the rebellion cases, testified that he was the violated because the documentary evidence presented against them were one who furnished the typists the original documents, and after those illegally seized or had come from doubtful sources. This claim has no merit. originals were copied on the typewriter he compared the typewritten copies We have carefully examined the record, and We find that search warrants with the originals, proofread them, stamped them and had them certified as were properly secured by the peace officers before raids were effected and true copies. This witness further testified that before the certified copies were that the documents, articles and effects seized from each place raided were presented in court as evidence said copies were compared with their listed, inventoried and marked. It even appears that statements were signed originals. 8 by some of the appellants certifying that the search warrants were executed in an orderly and peaceful manner by the raiding parties. During the reconstitution proceedings, counsel for appellants objected to the admission of some of the reconstituted documents upon the ground 5. The appellants assail the reconstitution of the exhibits that were that they were not sufficiently identified. The Commissioner, however, destroyed, and claim that the reconstituted exhibits should not be considered admitted all there constituted documents, and We find that the in this appeal. We have stated at the earlier part of this opinion that the Commissioner rightly did so. We find that Exhibits R-X-6 to R-P-73-79, the exhibits (documentary and other articles) were placed in the custody of the admission of which was objected to, were properly identified. Captain Philippine Constabulary because they had to be presented as evidence in Enrique L. Reyes of the PC, who was entrusted with the custody of the the trial of rebellion cases pending in other courts. Most of the originals of documents, had the list of all the exhibits that were burned, which were the documentary evidence were burned during the fire that gutted the inventoried and verified; as well as a list of those exhibits that were headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary on September 10, 1958. The presented in these cases, of which photostatic copies had been taken; and Solicitor General filed a petition for the reconstitution of the burned exhibits. when asked where the photostatic copies were, Capt. Reyes said that he The petition was given due course by this Court, and the Deputy Clerk of this had the photostatic copies, and pointed to a bundle of folders containing Court was commissioned to receive the evidence on the reconstitution of the them. These exhibits were checked and counter-checked with the record of burned documents. The list of reconstituted exhibits is Exhibit C- the present cases in the Supreme Court. 9 Sgt. Aquilino Tingco, who brought Reconstitution. In his report, dated October 6, 1959, the Commissioner the exhibits to the different courts where they were presented as evidence, recommended the admission of all the reconstituted exhibits. and who personally supervised the taking of the microfilm and the photostatic copies that were presented in the courts in lieu of the originals, We find that the reconstitution was made in accordance with the when asked to show to the Commissioner the photostats made of the provisions of Act 3110, which provides for the procedure in the reconstitution documents which were used the Politburo cases, extracted from a folder a of court records. Section 59 of said act provides that destroyed documentary bundle of papers and presented the list of exhibits (Exh. C-Reconstitution) evidence shall be reconstituted by means of secondary evidence which may along with photostatic copies of those listed exhibits, and he testified on be presented to any Justice of the Supreme Court or any other officer them. The witness was asked to consult the list of exhibits (Exhibit C- commissioned by the Court. Section 14 of the act provides that the Reconstitution) and he pointed to the Commissioner the exhibits to be destroyed or lost documentary evidence shall be replaced by secondary marked according to the list, which the Commissioner himself marked. The witness testified that the contents of the documents thus marked were the Upon a careful study of the evidence, We find: same as those of the originals. The Commissioner considered the documents properly identified and he admitted the documents over the That appellant Jose Lava was known under these aliases: Harry, Felix objection of counsel for the appellants, and he recommended to this Court Cruz, Gaston, Gaston Silayan, Greg, Gregorio Santayana and Gavino. Jose the admission of all of them. This Court approved the report of the Lava became a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines during Commissioner. the Japanese occupation. In a self-appraisal which he wrote, and published in mimeograph form with the approval of the Secretariat, he stated that We have carefully examined and analyzed these reconstituted exhibits although he was a new Party member he had been entrusted with and We believe that they constitute a competent evidence to be considered responsible positions in the Party and that due to his high sense of in arriving at a decision in these cases. responsibility and initiative he could rank with the best in the party. Lava was not only, a confirmed communist; he was a ranking leader of the CPP, being 6. The appellants also claim that they were not afforded the time and a member of the Central Committee (CC) of the CPP and he participated in freedom to prepare for their defense. This claim of appellants is not borne by the Politburo meetings. In the Politburo conference in Manila in January the record. The record shows, that the trial of these cases took months; all 1947 he proposed armed struggle to overthrow the Government. His the defendants were represented by counsel, either de officio or de parte, participation therein was described in Exhibit O-228-229, as follows: who did their best to defend the appellants during the trial. In fact the defense lawyers were commended by the trial court for their efforts in ... There was an attempt in the conference to give it a defense of the appellants. None of the appellants was deprived of his day in character of a CC conference notwithstanding the fact that there court. Everyone was given an opportunity testify and/or adduce evidence in were only eleven CC members, out of thirty-five, present in the his behalf. All the appellants, except Jose Lava and Nicanor Razon, Sr., conference. There was also an attempt to isolate some CC testified in court in their own defense. The record does not show that members who were easily available, as evidenced by the non- appellant Razon had testified or had presented any evidence in his behalf. invitation of Coms VY, Harry and Pacing known for their views in Appellant Jose Lava voluntarily refrained from taking the witness stand, but, support of the Nacionalista-Democratic Alliance coalition, and for an instead, he presented witnesses who vouched for his good moral character early resumption of the armed struggle. It was only later in the and exemplary conduct as a citizen. We find no merit in the claim that the conference, when their absence was noted by certain comrades, appellants were not afforded ample time and opportunity to prepare for their that Com Harry was invited to the conference .... defense. Com Harry proposed that the conference declare that armed Having thus resolved the common issues raised by the appellants, We struggle be the main form of struggle .... now proceed to determine the criminal responsibility, if any, of the individual appellants. Other documents show that Jose Lava had been attending meetings of the Secretariat (SEC) since October, 1949. He signed, under The lower court found some of the appellants guilty as principals, and the alias "Gaston Silayan", the Secretariat's transmission to the Politburo some as accomplices, in the commission of the complex crime of rebellion members in the field, under date of October 22, 1949. He issued under with multiple murder, arsons and robberies. We have already declared in this different aliases, for and in behalf of the Secretariat, Secretariat opinion that the crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, robbery transmissions up to October 14, 1950. He signed as "Gaston" the and other common crimes. Our task, therefore, is to determine the degree of Secretariat's transmission dated December 24, 1949; he signed as "Greg" responsibility of each of the appellants in the commission of the crime of those of July 22, 1950, of September 23, 1950, of September 30, 1950, of simple rebellion as defined and penalized under the provisions of Articles October 7, 1950, and of October 14, 1950; and signed as "Gavino" the 134, 135 and 136 of the Revised Penal Code. transmission dated September 25, 1950.

1. The appeal of Jose Lava Jose Lava's membership in the Secretariat of the CPP is shown in Jose Lava also attended and presided at meetings of the Communists various documents (Exh. C-1313 and Exhs. O-269-270). In another exhibit, and the HMB in his house in Tejeron, Makati. 10 N-1015-1017, Kas. Gaston was addressed as the General Secretary. Jose Lava was the author of many articles and/or writings, among As member of the SEC, and as General Secretary, Jose Lava them: "Self-Appraisal by Gregorio Santayana," a handwritten outline; attended SEC meetings and transmitted the decisions of the SEC to the "Struggle against Awaitism, by Gregorio Santayana", also a handwritten comrades of the Politburo in the regional commands. His direct participation outline, with a typewritten copy; "Outline of Strategy and Tactics"; "Strategy in the meetings of the SEC was mentioned in several SEC transmissions. In and Tactics"; "Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP"; "Outline on Milestones one such transmission he (Gaston) advocated the overthrow of the corrupt in the History of the CPP"; "Milestones in the History of the CPP", which is a Liberal Party administration because of the wholesale fraud and terrorism part of the curriculum in the secondary course of the schools conducted by during the elections of 1949. In the meeting of May 5, 1950, he (Gaston) the CPP. The "Outline on Strategy and Tactics" and "Strategy and Tactics" disagreed with Eto (Federico Maclang) and Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) on the were also in the secondary curriculum texts of the CPP. He is also the author way of giving money to deserving families, saying that: of "Finance Opportunism, Its Basic Causes and Remedies", a portion of which reads: . Even if we have a million pesos now, we still would need same to buy arms and ammo, decisively improve our propaganda ... There is no question that we cannot drastically eradicate to spread our influence over all the country, improve the diet of our finance opportunism within the Party and the National liberation fighting soldiers to increase their fighting efficiency, all with a view movement it is leading, and thereby hasten the maturity of the to hastening the people's victory and end their suffering earlier. revolutionary crisis and prepare the Party to create a clear and (Exh. O-91, par. 2) honest body of administrators and state functionaries and thereby maintain the power of the NEW DEMOCRACY that we are set to In the SEC meeting of September 29, 1950 "Greg" (Jose Lava) establish. dissented from the majority decision rejecting the proposal that Boris (Angel Baking) be allowed to attend the Military Committee (MC) meeting. (Exh. O- Another work of Jose Lava is "Accounting of the People's Funds 339, par. 15). Received and Spent to Finance the Revolutions", a portion of which reads as follows: Apart from his routinary duties as General Secretary, other duties were assigned to Jose Lava under hisaliases. Thus, as "Gaston", he was The Communist Party of the Philippines is leading the armed designated in the SEC's meeting of December 20, 1949 to take care of the struggle for national liberation and the establishment of a New editorial of the "TITIS", the official organ of the Communist Party; he was Democracy in order to crush the power of the exploiters, achieve given supervision over women matters, and over political and educational power for the exploited classes and exercise such power for their matters, in the meetings of February 15, 1950 and April 14, 1950. "Gaston" benefit, and for those who are disposed to accept the new was also in charge of Direct Party Propaganda, Curriculum and Analysis. As society .... "Greg", he was appointed by the SEC as one of the 15 members of the Military Committee (MC). He was to supervise, as decided in the SEC Jose Lava also wrote other documents, among them his handwritten meeting of April 14, 1950, the newly organized Technological Group. He was notes containing the territorial extent of Recos 1 to 7, and a plan of attack on instructed by the SEC, in its meeting of September 15, 1950, to prepare a the November 7, 1950 celebration; a list containing several persons (aliases) draft of the resolution for discussion before the Military Committee. In the assigned to Recos 1 to 7 and to the Military, Pol-Ed, organizational and GHQ meeting of the SEC on September 22, 1950, he was given power to review organs; a letter to Eto (Federico Maclang) on the reverse of a list containing all the minutes and decisions of the National Education Commission (NEC) names of Malaca_¤_an special agents. He also wrote letters to Party and only matters which he did not approve were to be taken up by the members concerning the activities of the Party and/or HMB — unmistakably Secretariat. indicating conspiracy or connection between him and other top HMB and CPP leaders in the field. Thus, "Gaston" (Lava) wrote a letter to Leo (Cesareo Torres) informing the latter that the stencils for "Ang Komunista" list of books requested by Jose Lava while the latter was detained in Bilibid were already sent by NED-Out and that if Leo needed funds, he could ask Prison. Buenaventura Villanueva, to whom the list was given, testified that from the NFC. In a letter of September 4, 1950 to Eto (Federico Maclang), he saw Lava writing the list on the cardboard. What appears on Exhibit FF-2 "Gaston" (Lava) transmitted to Maclang three letters, on the reverse side of is certainly a genuine specimen of Lava's handwriting. one which was a note of O. Beria (Maclang) asking who the writers were. In his letter of September 26, 1950 "Gaston" advised Eto (Maclang) to The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who circularize all Recos about the conference of the RECO-Ed and G-3 before believes it to be the handwriting of such person, and has seen the person October 15. In his letter of September 12, Gaston asked the addressee write. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) about the latter's self-appraisal, the Hospital comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or Group, and the selection of two additional members to help Luming treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or (Iluminada Calonje or Salome Cruz). proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. 13 The handwriting expert who made the comparison in this case positively identified the The foregoing findings of this Court are based mainly on documents handwriting of Jose Lava on the documents presented as evidence against presented as evidence during the trial. Those documents were taken: some said appellant, specially the handwritten names of Gregorio Santayana, from the third floor of the Mayflower Apartments, at Estrada and Gaston, Gaston Silayan, Gavino and Greg. 14 Pennsylvania Streets in Manila, which was then rented by appellant Lava when it was raided by peace officers on June 23, 1950; and the other Appellant Jose Lava did not take the witness stand to testify in his own documents from the different places that were raided by the MIS agents and behalf. Instead, he presented witnesses to testify on his good moral the Manila Police on October 18, 1950, where most of the accused in these character, his strong convictions and his good citizenship. An accused, five cases were arrested. One of the places raided on October 18, 1950 was however, is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous good 683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, where appellant Lava was arrested along moral character and exemplary conduct. When a court believes that an with his co-accused Federico Bautista, Simeon Rodriguez, Victorina G. accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, it must Rodriguez and Pedro Vicencio. Numerous documents, books, and articles convict him notwithstanding evidence of his good moral character and were seized at that place where Lava was arrested, and those documents previous exemplary conduct. 15 were used as evidence during the trial of these five cases in the court below. We find that the evidence adduced during the trial has proved beyond Some of the documents thus seized, and which were presented as reasonable doubt that appellant Jose Lava was one of the top leaders of the evidence, were in appellant Lava's handwriting, or were signed by him using CCP, and that he was not only working to propagate the doctrine of his alias names. This is clearly established by the testimony of a handwriting communism in the Philippines but was actually promoting an armed uprising expert that was presented by the prosecution. The conclusion of the against the Government. He did not actually take to the field and participate handwriting expert was based on the specimens of Lava's handwriting which in the armed attacks against constituted authorities, but in the positions that were used as standards in comparing with the handwriting and/or signature he held in the CCP, he actually promoted, maintained, and even directed the (in alias) of the appellant that appear in the documents that were presented armed activities of the HMB which were aimed at overthrowing the as evidence against him. It is contended by appellant's counsel that no Government and implanting a new system of government in the Philippines. genuine specimen of Lava's handwriting was presented as standard for As General Secretary of the CCP he signed, in his aliases, the comparison. We do not see merit in this contention. We find that the communications or transmissions of the Secretariat to the HMB and CCP standards for comparison that were used were the documents marked 11 leaders in the field. As We have stated in this opinion, there was a tie-up Exhibits FF-1 and FF-2. Exhibit FF-1 is an application for employment between the CCP and the HMB, and that the HMB was the military arm of signed by Jose Lava. The signature thereon was testified to by witness the CCP. The CCP went underground sometime in November 1949. It was Eduardo Romualdez (now Secretary of Finance) as looking "like the precisely during the latter part of 1949 and during the year 1950 (before the signature of Jose Lava." Eduardo Romualdez was acquainted with the arrests of the accused in these five cases on October 18, 1950) when the handwriting of Jose Lava, having received reports (Exh. FF), parts of which HMB was most active in its armed operations against the Government — or were in the handwriting of Jose Lava "not less than three or four times" while 12 against the elements of the Army, the PC and the Police, and against public Jose lava, was a bank examiner. Exhibit FF-2 is a cardboard containing a officials and even against civilians. The evidence against appellant Lava shows that it was in 1949 and 1950 when he, in his capacity as one of the maintain and direct the operations of the HMB. Thus, there was presented in top leaders of the CPP, actively participated in the armed struggle being evidence a letter 19 written by this appellant to Leo (co-accused Cesareo carried on by the HMB by sending directives and other communications to Torres), under date of July 10, 1950, transmitting the latest party decision the leaders of the HMB and to the heads of the regional commands of the regarding authorized daily subsistence allowance of personnel of the CPP CPP who were operating in the field. He was, in fact, one of the leaders of organs, ranging from P1.00 to P1.20. Cesareo Torres is the head of the the rebellion. He planned the attack for the November 7, (1950) anniversary Technical Office in charge of propaganda. In a handwritten tabulation celebration, which was to include the capture of towns near Manila and the prepared by him, 20 which was sort of a financial statement, there is shown liquidation of enemies in the City by the different regional commands. an amount spent for communications and for intelligence. It appears that of the total income of P8,006.80 for April, May and June 1950, 20% was We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Jose Lava allotted for ammunitions and 10% for intelligence. This financial statement, is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he as finally published, was certified to by Johnny (co-accused Ramon Espiritu) should be punished accordingly. as head of the National Finance Committee, and audited and approved by Tommy (co-accused Honofre Mangila). This document once more indicates clearly that the HMB was being supported by the CPP. 2. Appeal of Federico Bautista There is a document labelled "Memorandum on Intelligence", 21 a We find it conclusively shown by the evidence that: typewritten draft, which was shown to bear the pencil handwritten insertions and corrections made by appellant Federico Bautista, indicating that this Appellant Federico Bautista had used, or was known under, draft was prepared by him. Portion of this document reads: the aliases: F. Payat, Fred, Freddie, and Freding. He was arrested by the MIS agents and the police on October 18, 1950 at 683 Pasaje Rosario, Without deviating from the general orientation of expanding Paco, Manila, along with his co-accused Jose Lava, Simeon Rodriguez, evenly along the four branches of intelligence, viz.: Political, Victorina G. Rodriguez and Pedro Vicencio. He joined the CPP on August 8, economic, cultural and military, the emphasis for the present is on 1949. Testifying in his own behalf, he said that he joined the CPP because of military intelligence both strategic and tactical. This is in conformity the failure of the administration then to carry out the terms of the Amnesty with and in direct pursuance of the Party's program of "all for Proclamation which he helped to bring about; and also because, of the expansion and the armed struggle." The mechanics of wresting ouster of six members of Congress from the central Luzon provinces who power will eventually be a military struggle, we must have a were elected in the 1946 elections, of the frauds and terrorism committed in continual basis by which we can estimate what the enemy intends subsequent elections and the graft and corruption in the government. to do and the tenacity with which they will implement these intentions singly and collectively. He was a member of the National Finance Committee of the CPP, 16 of which committee Ramon Espiritu (co-accused) was the chairman, and Appellant Federico Bautista was identified with the high councils of the Simeon Rodriguez (co-accused) was a ranking member. As such member of CPP. He attended Politburo conferences. 22 Along with Ramon Espiritu and the National Finance Committee part of his duties and responsibilities was one Nicasio Pamintuan, he sat to try, and found guilty, one Domingo Clarin, the procurement of supplies, such as arms, ammunitions, medicine, office a member of the HMB Trigger Squad, who was charged with having supplies, clothing, etc., for the dissidents' (both of the CPP and of the HMB) squealed regarding the hold-up of the Naric in Pulilan. Appellant Federico organizations in the field. He became a member of the Military Committee of Bautista had previously assigned Clarin to guard Jose Lava. 23 the CPP, with special assignment as Chief of Intelligence, GHQ. 17 He was also assigned to, and exercised authority over, the armed forces (AF [HMB]) in Manila and suburbs, which was called the City Command. He also had We have carefully studied the evidence for the prosecution and supervisory powers over the National Courier Division. 18 defense, as well as the argument of the counsel in the appellant's brief, and We believe that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Federico Bautista is one of the leaders of the rebellion jointly undertaken by This appellant did not actually take to the field and participated in the the CPP and HMB. We agree with the finding of the lower court that this armed operations of the HMB, but he did staff work which to promote, appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, assigned the supervision on all organizational matters, on the youth and he should be punished accordingly. problems and activities, and also on military affairs. Likewise, he was assigned supervision over the Trade Union Division (TUD) and the trade 3. Appeal of Federico Maclang union struggle; also he had supervision over the news section of the TITIS; and he was authorized by the Secretariat to review the decisions of the Regional Command (RECO) and, like appellant Jose Lava, only those Appellant Federico Maclang was arrested on October 18, 1950 by decisions which he did not approve were taken up by the Secretariat. 27As agents of the MIS and the Manila Police at 1938 Interior 7, Felix Huertas, chief of the Organizational Bureau he issued, or approved the issuance of, Manila, along with Julita Rodriguez and Felipe Engreso — the latter two circulars, plans, and directives to the different organs of the CPP. 28 being among those convicted by the lower court in these five cases, but

Julita Rodriguez withdrew her appeal. He used the aliases: O. Beria, Eto, 29 Olibas, Manuel Santos, Manuel Santa Fe and Ambrosia Reyes. This appellant prepared the document entitled "Impiltrasyon". In this document he discussed the problems of infiltration and the methods or techniques to be followed by party members in infiltrating government The evidence conclusively shows that this appellant is a ranking offices, the armed forces, and the ranks of anti-communist groups, in communist, and he was responsible for the organization of the CPP in connection with the underground work of the CPP and the HMB. He also Manila and Rizal. He issued directives, plans and instructions to the different prepared "Pakikibaka sa Pagani" 30 where he urged the peasants to fight for units of the CPP in the field that were working in close collaboration with the bigger crop shares, and the workers to fight for better wages, pointing out HMB in the latter's armed operations. By his own testimony he revealed that that the government cannot meet the demands of the working class so that he is a confirmed communist. He declared that he was one of the organizers the only alternative is to support the "People's Liberation Movement" and of the PKM (a peasants' organization) in Luzon, that he became a effect changes through armed struggle. He wrote the "Pangatawanan ang communist after studying thoroughly the principles of communism in relation Kampanya sa Pagpalawak ng Ating Patanim at Pagpalitaw sa to the economic and political conditions of the country; that he believes in Inuhi". 31 where he states the policy of the CPP regarding the expansion of the overthrow of "imperialism" and the establishment of a "new democracy" the production areas and the production of more crops to maintain and in the Philippines. support the revolution and to prepare the masses for self-government.

It is shown by the evidence that: Likewise, he wrote the "Ang Kompiskasyon", a circular issued by the Organizational Bureau (OB), of which he was the head, to all the Appellant Maclang joined the CPP sometime in 1939; and he was a organizational units of the CPP, explaining the Party's theory of confiscation. member of the Politburo from 1944 up to the time of his arrest on October This circular authorizes confiscation as a means to raise revenue for the 18, 1950. 24 "People's Liberation Movement". This circular lists the classes of individuals who are considered enemies of the revolution and whose properties may be 32 In the document labelled "Pagtuya sa Sarile", shown to have been confiscated. written by him, 25 it appears that he was the Chief of the Organizational Bureau (OB) of the CPP from 1948 until the time of his arrest, and that as an When this appellant was arrested on October 18, 1950, there were organizer he was responsible for the organization of the Regional found in his possession documents which indubitably show the high Commands (Recos) of the party. He was also one of the members of the positions that he occupied in the CPP and the direct connections that he had Secretariat, and as such he actively participated in the deliberations and with the operations of the HMB. Thus, there is Exhibit N-52, which is a partial decisions of the body. report of Reco 2 regarding military operations during the "Cry of Balintawak" celebration. In this report are stated the simultaneous HMB attacks at Camp In several letters of Enteng (Luis Taruc) to him, which were identified Makabulos, Tarlac, and at Arayat in the evening of August 25, 1950. There during the trial, as well as in his letter to Enteng, a copy of which was found are also Exhibits N-56-57 which are the reports from Reco 2 of the HMB in his possession and was identified by him, 26 his membership in the attacks at barrio Capalad, Arayat on September 12, 1950, and at San Luis Secretariat is clearly shown. As a member of the Secretariat he was on September 13, 1950. There was found in his possession, when he was arrested, a file copy (Exh. N-202) of a letter addressed to his comrades in Regional Command No. 4, dated October 14, 1950. The original of this letter will cooperate with you in this task as we have been informed that (Exh. M-292) was found at 1608-B Andalucia, apparently in transit through he is coming to your place. the National Courier Division. It should be noted that it is in 1608-B Andalucia where Salome Cruz, the Chairman of the National Courier Re-request on arms and ammos, we are not yet in a position Division, had her headquarters. In this letter appellant Maclang wrote: to give you the assurance of aid, however, we are dealing with the smugglers to purchase these ammos to supply such operations. I received a letter to the SEC from Com Bonifacio, PBS, R-5, dated Because it is not very sure, it will be better for the Recos to Oct. 10, 1950. Because of the urgency and because the Comca is leaving at cooperate on the preparation of ammos. 12:00 a.m. this day, I, as in charge of military matters of the SEC, in the absence of the SEC meeting I have rendered the following decision: There are letters of appellant Maclang to Luming (Salome Cruz), one of the accused, which were presented in evidence, where he gave her x x x x x x x x x orders and instructions regarding the dispatch of couriers to the regional commands and the activities of the National Courier Division. 35 Documents ORDER: I hereby order to R-4 to take all action concerning were also presented, which appear to have been issued or approved by the Organizational Bureau of which this appellant was the chief, dealing with the all the requests of the letter of Com. Bonifacio to the SEC. Reject 36 the idea of sending back these deserters (men and officers) to R-5 methods of improving the communication system of the CPP. All these and I am giving full authority to R-4 to arrest and try all these said indicate that appellant Maclang had also supervision over the National deserters. All actions should be based on our military rulings. Courier Division (NCD) of the CPP.

The letter of Comrade Bonifacio referred to in the above-quoted letter Appellant Maclang, in his defense, denied knowledge about the HMB of appellant Maclang was found in his possession at the time of his arrest. A raids and ambushes. We find, however, overwhelming evidence that copy of this letter was found in the possession of the appellant Jose Lava disproves his claim. The evidence clearly shows that he participated directly when the latter was arrested at 683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, on in planning, coordinating, supporting, and approving the HMB raids, attacks October 18, 1950. 33 It was shown during the trial that this letter of appellant and ambushes. He was a member of the Secretariat of the CPP and Maclang was transcribed from the stenographic notes taken down by Julita participated in its meetings. He was in charge of the military affairs of the Rodriguez on her notebook (Exh. M-31-E). This Julita Rodriguez worked as CPP; he gave orders to the Recos to attack the government forces; he a clerk with appellant-Maclang, and she was also arrested on October 18, approved the plans of attack against the City of Manila and towns around 1950 along with Maclang and Felipe Engreso, another employee of Manila on November 7, 1959; he received reports of HMB raids and attacks. Maclang. Both Julita Rodriguez and Felipe Engreso were also accused in All these make him, in contemplation of law, a leader of the rebellion. these cases. The authority of appellant Maclang on military matters is made manifest in the above-mentioned letter. There is, to Us, no doubt that by the high positions he held in the CPP, appellant Federico Maclang was one of the leaders of the CPP that In another letter of appellant Maclang, which was his reply to the letter promoted, maintained and directed the armed operations of the HMB to he received from one Plaridel, regarding the plan for attack on November 7, overthrow the Philippine government. We agree with the finding of the lower 1950 celebration, 34 he said: court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly. Re-celebration, I am glad that you are actively preparing to achieve the SEC objectives. We have no objections on the towns 4. Appeal of Ramon Espiritu that you have stated including Mcy. Our only doubt here is Mrqn, because this is very near enemy camp, however, proceed to your Appellant Ramon Espiritu was arrested by the agents of the MIS and preparation and we will help you on intelligence operations on said the Manila Police on October 18, 1950 at 1608-B Andalucia Street, Manila, localities. In this connection, we have the opinion that Com. Pacing along with Salome Cruz, Rosario Vda. de Santos, Naty Cruz, Aurora Garcia, Lamberto Magboo and Josefina Adelan. He was known by statement, she admitted that she was the Chairman of the National the alias "Johnny". Communication Division (NCD) of the CPP from November, 1949 to May, 1950. 45 In his written statement, 37 he admitted that he was a member of the Politburo and the Chairman of the National Finance Committee of the CPP. Documentary evidence shows her various positions in the CPP, The evidence shows that he was a member of the Secretariat of the CPP, namely: Acting Chief of the Central Post of the Communications Division and and he participated in the deliberations and decisions of that body. 38 He was in charge of Sub-Posts; In-charge of Couriers; In-charge of finance from also one of the 15 members of the Military Committee (MC). 39 He was the November, 1949 to May 17, 1950; In-charge of all Central Committee cadres Politburo and Secretariat Supervisor of the National Courier Division. 40 He when they came to Manila for medical attention; In-charge of sick comrades had been assigned to various important positions in the CPP, like the coming from provinces under the supervision of Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) in supervision of Trade Union Division (TUD) and the trade union struggle, the National Commission; and Chairman of the Hospital Group to take care together with his co-accused Federico R. Maclang. 41 He was also assigned of the sick and wounded from the City and provinces. 46 to the City Committee to reorganize the City Committee and the City 42 Command. He was likewise assigned to supervise Luming (co-accused The evidence further shows that Salome Cruz wrote several notes Salome Cruz) in taking care of the sick comrades coming from 43 and/or documents showing her activities in the National Communication provinces. He attended meetings of the Communists and HMB. He was Division, Hospital Group and other party organs. Thus, on July 4, 1950, she one of those who tried Huk member Domingo Clarin, assigned to the Trigger made handwritten notes on " Sub-Posts" containing names (aliases) of Squad of the HMB, and found him guilty of having squealed regarding the 44 regular and irregular couriers of RECO 1 to 7, Dist. No. 5 and Pangasinan; holdup of the NARIC at Pulilan. on July 5, 1950, she also made notes on "Regular na Dating at alis ng mga Korriers sa NCD napunta sa bawat Recos", which show the dates of arrivals In his defense appellant Espiritu testified that he had nothing to do and departures of the couriers for Recos 1 to 7 Dist. No. 4 Pangasinan and with the HMB raids and ambushes. Seemingly, to justify his membership in Cavite; on May 5, 1950 she wrote a letter to Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) the Communist Party, this appellant discussed the general history of labor informing the latter of the arrival and departure of couriers of RECO 1 and and its unsavory relations with capital, for which he blamed the feudal the availability for distribution of the April 12 and 30 issues of TITIS; she also economy that had pervaded the economic life of the Filipino people. He wrote letters to Beria (co-accused Federico Maclang), Payat and Fred (co- candidly recounted his efforts in trying to understand the cause of the accused Federico Bautista), and Berting (co-accused Lamberto Magboo), people's economic ills, and the efforts of labor unions in demanding better regarding couriers and the activities of the National Communication Division wages and living conditions for laborers. (NCD). 47 She also made handwritten notes on the National Communication Division (NCD) Consolidated Report, showing the income and expenses Considering the tie-up between the CPP and the HMB, there can from May 1 to May 17, 1950 of the Central Post and the Outposts; and a letter to Charing (co-accused Rosario C. Vda. de Santos) on May 17, 1950 hardly be any question that appellant Ramon Espiritu, member of the 48 Politburo, of the Secretariat, and of the Military Committee, of the CPP, had instructing the latter to check up the Sub-Posts. actively participated in promoting and maintaining the armed operations of the HMB, along with top CPP leaders, Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, In her brief, appellant Salome Cruz claimed, among other things, that Federico Maclang, and others. We agree, also, with the finding of the lower the trial court erred in convicting her as principal, despite the fact that her court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime participation was only on inconsequential details, and her guilt had not been of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly. established beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Appeal of Salome Cruz There is no evidence to show that appellant Salome Cruz actually took part in the raids, attacks and ambushes perpetrated by the HMB. It cannot Appellant Salome Cruz, wife of appellant Ramon Espiritu, was be said, however, that her role in the plan to overthrow the Government was arrested on October 18, 1950 at 1608-B, Andalucia St., Manila. She was inconsequential, she having been in charge of communications, transmitting known by her two aliases: Luming, and Iluminada Calonje in her written orders and directives of the Politburo and Secretariat to the HMB in the field until May 1950; she being in charge of couriers, making notes of regular and (a) Reco 1, means of communication still good and 2 couriers irregular couriers, their arrivals and departures; she being in charge of the arrived June 25 and departed July 4. Hospital group to take care of the sick and wounded from the city and provinces. These facts show that she was cooperating actively in promoting (b) Reco 2, — The road is still clear and the couriers of Pangasinan and maintaining the armed activities of the HMB, considering the tie-up were already established there, thru Com. Piping. between the CPP and the HMB. The maintenance of communications between the top leaders of the CPP and the units operating in the field is very essential in the success of the rebellion. It is in this connection that this (c) Reco 3 — The road is difficult that is the reason why the Post at appellant played a very important role. San Jose is no longer used but that of San Rafael.

We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Salome (d) Reco 4 — The road is difficult connection severed but D-4 is Cruz is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and already connected. (Exh. 159-162). she should be punished accordingly. As chief of the Outpost, she made, on August 19, 1950, the following 53 6. Appeal of Rosario C. Vda. de Santos report:

Appellant Rosario C. Vda. de Santos was arrested by the agents of (a) Reco 1 — Couriers did not arrive, so no report. the MIS and the Manila Police, together with co-accused Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Naty Cruz, Aurora Garcia, Lamberto Magboo, and Josefina (b) Reco 2 — Couriers arrived as the PC are out daily in the field .... Adelan, in these five cases, at 1608-B Andalucia, Sampaloc, Manila, on October 18, 1950. (c) Reco 3 — Road is also difficult.

The evidence shows that: (d) Reco 4 — Road is not difficult, but no definite Post for the couriers. Appellant Rosario C. Vda. de Santos uses the alias "Charing". In her testimony, however, she claims that her real name is Aurelia Cayetano. She (e) District No. 4 — 2 weeks no arrival of couriers but special was designated by the Secretariat of the CPP In-charge of Outpost of the couriers in Com. Amat (now under arrest) arrived on 12 July '50. National Communication Division, with the duty to maintain discipline among couriers coming from without. 49 She worked under Salome Cruz (Luming) who was the Chairman of the National Communications Division (NCD) of (f) Cavite — Did not arrive last Sunday while the agreement was the CPP. This appellant was in charge of checking the irregular couriers for Saturday. Regional Commands, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Pangasinan. 50 She was a staff member of the NCD, and she participated in the NCD meetings, took down In a letter to her co-accused Luming (Salome Cruz), she stated that minutes, and rendered reports. She made reports to the head of the NCD. she knew the circumstances surrounding the killing, and the murderers of One such report says: 51 Norberto Icasiano, Mayor of Bulacan. 54 She even mentioned that she met the deceased's brother in a school house in Malolos, Bulacan, and that she Naisasagawang maayos na pagtanggap sa lahat ng had to hide her face behind her umbrella in order to avoid being recognized. dumating at maayos na pagalis ng couriers. Various documents were shown during the trial which were written by 55 Another report was that one she made on July 12, 1950, about the her, and that they were written during meetings of the leaders of the CPP. outpost: 52 In her defense, this appellant testified that her co-accused Ramon (typewritten — this was shown to be used as text for HMB studies); "Stalin Espiritu requested her to stay with him as a household help with a salary of and the National Colonial Question" by John Blake; etc. P10.00 a month; that besides preparing food, she was also assigned the duty of recording the letters delivered to and received at that place; that her We find, by the evidence, that: real name is Aurelia Cayetano, but she was using the name of Rosario C. Vda. de Santos because she was a wanted woman by the Japanese during the occupation for having aided the guerillas, and she was known by that Appellant Angel Baking used the aliases: Bayan, B. and Boriz. He name among her friends even after the liberation. She admitted that the joined the communist party in April, 1949, although he had been identified 56 name "Charing" was hers, but claimed that she did not know the persons with the leaders of the CPP since the early part of 1944. He had been writing to her and that they were writing to her because she was the one associated with top communists like Jorge Frianeza, Luis Taruc, Federico always in the house. Bautista, Simeon Rodriguez and Jose Lava. When the Technological Group (TG) of the CPP was organized, it was placed under the immediate supervision of Boriz (Angel Baking) although the final supervision was under We find it proven that this appellant was a staff member of the Greg (Jose Lava). 57 National Courier (or Communication) Division of the CPP, and that she checked and made reports on the arrival and dispatch of couriers. The lower court declared her guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of In the meeting of the Secretariat of the CPP on September 29, 1950, rebellion. In Our appraisal of the evidence, however, We find that she was the attendance of Boriz in the meeting of the Military Committee was merely executing the orders or commands of others who are superior to her discussed, and it appears in the record: "Com. Boriz is a competent in the organizational set-up of the CPP. Considering that her activities took technologist, is ready to go out and ready to stay in the field as the Party 58 place while the CPP was underground, and during the period when the decides." The Secretariat of the CPP assigned him to head the Special 59 armed operations of the HMB were taking place, We find her guilty as a Warfare Division under the GHQ. As head of the Special Warfare Division mere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion under the under the GHQ, appellant Angel Baking wrote a memorandum for the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and should be Secretariat regarding the immediate installation of a wireless communication punished accordingly. system between the GHQ and the Secretariat. Some paragraphs of the memorandum read as follows: 7. Appeal of Angel Baking Briefly the main point to be dealt with pertains to equipment, its procurement, technical description, distribution, installation, Appellant Angel Baking was arrested by the agents of the MIS and of operation and maintenance; technical personnel who will participate the Manila Police in his office at Room 504 Samanillo Building, Escolta, in the solution of the technical aspects of the problems; the Code Manila, on October 19, 1950, along with Marciano de Leon who is also one system, which is an integral part of the WCS; and the non-technical of the accused in these cases. His house at No. 1518 Calixto Dayco, Paco, implications of the problems. Manila, was also raided. From his office and his residence many books, documents, and other papers were seized, which proved that this appellant was a confirmed communist and was having close connections with leaders Because of the underground nature of the system, several of the CPP. Some of the books found in his residence are: "The Third Five problems not met in the legal installation of this system creep to the Year Plan" by V. Molotov; "Reminiscence of Lenin" by C. Zetkin; Marx and surface. The equipment itself is conditioned by abnormal factors Engels (Selected correspondence); "Heroic Lenin-grad"; "Theory of the which are not met ordinarily; the personnel is difficult to enlist; and Agrarian Question (Lenin); "Stalin" (G. I. R., James; "Constitution of the the installation, operation and maintenance of the system become Kirghis Soviet Socialist Republic"; "The Class Struggle in France"; unduly handicapped and difficult to perform. "Biographical Compilation of Communist Leaders outside the Soviet Unions", etc. There are also found reading materials labelled: "Comparative Since the transmitting unit in Manila cannot be fully used Outlines of Communism and Capitalism showing advantages of communistic without risking its immediate detection by the enemy, transmissions ideology"; "Blue Record containing outline of the Taruc story" (this contains to the field from HQ (Manila) may partly be coursed thru the draft of Taruc story for filming and publication); "Political Economy" legitimate radio stations. This has always been done before, and there is no reason why it cannot be developed now. The essential seized power, the struggle in Asia shall have been requirements for this measure would be: resolved.

(1) A cadre to infiltrate the Corps of broadcasters in There was found in the possession of Simeon G. Rodriguez the radio stations, which may be assigned to the Cultural (one of the appellants in these cases), the document marked Group. This cadre should get a position as broadcaster at Exhibit O-254 where it appears that appellant Angel Baking specific hours, either as station announcer or newscaster acknowledged having received from the National Finance for the newspaper or time buyers at the stations; Committee of the CCP the sum of P45.00 for the Technological Group (TG) of which he was a member. Simeon G. Rodriguez is a (2) This cadre should be given a code system thru member of the National Finance Committee of the CCP. which whatever message to be transmitted, may be coursed.60 At the time of his arrest, appellant Angel Baking was a foreign affairs officer in the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Appellant Baking admitted having prepared the foregoing draft but the Philippines. That he was using his position in the Department of he claimed, in his testimony, that draft was prepared way back in Foreign Affairs for intelligence work — and the lower court calls this May 1948 at the request of one Jorge Frianesa who was a ranking a manifestation of his "scheming mind" — may be gathered from member of the CCP. It appears, however, that when his office in the what he wrote in his diary as follows: Samanillo building was raided by the agents of the MIS and the Manila Police this document was found torn inside a waste basket, There was a tactical error in my transfer to the new and this circumstance made the lower court conclude that he wrote office room. The office was supposed to be occupied by the draft not in 1948 but shortly before the raid on October 19, ambassadors and high-ranking officials. I transferred to it 1950. The lower court further pointed out that his explanation was without insuring my hold on the important men of the filmsy because of the numerous evidence which showed that he department. Thus I opened my flank and left my rear supervised the Technological Group and the Special Warfare unprotected, and made myself extremely vulnerable. Division at the GHQ of the CCP. We agree with the conclusions of the lower court in this respect. Because of this, I find myself unprepared to handle that problem. Peter ordered Quiamco that I be transferred Besides there were found in his office at Room 504 back to where I came from. Samanillo Building at the time of the raid several U.S. Army technical manuals on Cipher Systems and Advanced Military I also forgot that the important thing to remember is Cryptography, and these manuals have connection with the the unbroken and steady .... recommendation in his memorandum for the use of the code system for transmitting messages thru legitimate radio stations. AGB (Exh. L-78e). There are still other documents which clearly indicate appellant Baking's cooperation with the leaders of the CCP in the There is another document found in Baking's residence at furtherance of the plan to seize power. In the document, marked 518-B Calixto Dayco which was admitted by him to be his. This Exhibit L-33s, he made the following statement: document contains entries which indicate his dealings with the CCP organizations and its members. The entries are as follows: To forestall errors in the planning for the future, the training of leading Cadres as economists should be NFC ...... P200 intensified. It is more than likely that by the time CCP Graciano ...... the place, 1608-B Andalucia, is the headquarters of Salome Cruz who was the Chief of the National Courier Division of the CPP. The evidence shows Graciano ...... that the other persons who were arrested in that place namely, Naty Cruz, and Josefina Adelan worked as couriers under Salome Cruz. Rosario C. Apolinario ...... Vda. de Santos also worked under Salome Cruz as in-charge of outpost. Aurora Garcia was employed by her aunt, Rosario Vda. de Santos, as a Talas ...... maid and that she was selling the TITIS. SGR ...... The evidence shows that: Abe ...... Godong ...... Appellant Lamberto Magboo used the aliases Berting and Eddie. He admitted that he was a courier of the CPP, and that he actually mailed letters Lake ...... and packages at the Bureau of Posts and at the post office at the Far Eastern University; and he delivered letters, boxes of medicines, canned Mario ...... goods, lanterns, and shoes, from 1608-B Andalucia Street (house of Lamang ...... appellant Salome Cruz) to the La Mallorca Bus station, to the LTB station, at Altura Street, Sta. Mesa, at Divisoria Street, and at Celeridad Street in Pasay City. 61 He was a checker of the regular and irregular couriers of The "NFC" has been shown to stand for National Finance Committee Recos 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and Dist. No. 4 Pangasinan, and was also a special of the CCP, and "SGR" for Simeon G. Rodriguez, a member of the NFC of courier of Dist. No. 4, c/o Reco 4. 62 the CCP, who is also one of the appellants in the present cases. There were sheets of blank papers seized from 742 Colorado Street, Manila, the printing Considering that the Recos are the units of the CPP that are operating office of TITIS and the working place of Cesario Torres, also one of the with the HMB in the field, such that the person who acts as courier from the appellants in the present cases, bearing signatures of "Apolinario", "Mariano headquarters of the National Courier Division of the CPP in Manila to these P. Balgos" and "Luis Taruc". Recos was actually working and cooperating with the armed operations to overthrow the government. We find appellant Lamberto Magboo guilty as a Considering the facts We have hereinabove-stated, We have no doubt mere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion, under the in our mind that appellant Angel Baking as a confirmed communist, had second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and he should aided in the efforts of the leaders of the CPP to promote and maintain the be punished accordingly. armed operations of the HMB to overthrow the government. The lower court found this appellant guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of 9. Appeal of Nicanor Razon, Sr. rebellion. We have noted that the role played by this appellant was that of a technician or adviser. Considering that he participated in the rebellion efforts of the CPP while he was holding a public office. We agree with the finding of Appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr., known also by the alias Elias Rubi, the lower court, and he should be punished under the first paragraph of admitted that he had been a member of the CPP since July 1, 1945. Among Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code. the documents found at 1608-B Andalucia, Sampaloc, Manila, was the cadre registration and oath of this appellant as a member of the CPP. He was the secretary of Barangay I SECCOM (Sectional Committee) II of the District of 8. Appeal of Lamberto Magboo Tondo, and later rose to the position of treasurer in the same committee. He helped in distributing the TITIS, the official organ of the CPP. 63 Appellant Lamberto Magboo was arrested by the agents of the MIS and of the Manila Police at 1608-B Andalucia, Manila, on October 18, 1950, The record does not show that this appellant had testified in his along with the accused Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Rosario C. Vda. de behalf, nor presented any evidence in his defense. In his brief before this Santos, Naty Cruz, Aurora Garcia and Josefina Adelan. It must be noted that Court, however, this appellant claims that the lower court erred in finding him guilty as an accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion, no association committed to subvert the Government, cannot be evidence having been adduced to show that he had performed any act, applied to the appellants because said Act was approved on June which would constitute a cooperation in promoting the rebellion jointly 20, 1957 and was not in force at the time of the commission of the undertaken by the CPP and the HMB. acts charged against appellants (committed 1945-1950); the Anti- Subversion Act punishes participation or membership in an We find merit in the contention of this appellant. We find that the organization committed to overthrow the duly constituted evidence against this appellant only shows that he is a member of the Government, a crime distinct from that of actual rebellion with which Communist Party, and that he had been secretary and later treasurer of appellants are charged. SECCOM II of the District of Tondo. There is no evidence regarding his actual participation in the efforts of the leaders of the CPP and the HMB to 10. Appeal of Marcos Medina promote the rebellion. His having distributed the TITIS, the official organ of the CPP, is at most an act in the category of a propaganda which in itself Appellant Marcos Medina was arrested by MIS agents on October 17, does not show that he advocated actual uprising against the Government. It 1950 at 1028-B, Quezon Boulevard. He used the alias Hiwara. He admitted has not been shown that he collaborated in the efforts to advance the cause in his written statement 64 that he was a member of the Hukbalahap of the rebellion. The fact that he is a member of the Communist Party and an Squadron 25 with headquarters at Kandating, Candaba; that he became a officer of one of its committees is not a sufficient basis for declaring him corporal of the Huks in 1944; and that he was a member of the guilty as an accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion. Organizational Committee, Reco 4, Laguna, from 1946 to 1949. 65 In 1949, he studied at the Central Institute of Technology, and while studying, he used In the case of People vs. Hernandez, G. R. Nos. L-6025-6026 this to help HMB couriers Lydia (alias of Alicia Villegas), and Celong (alias of Court held: Marcelino Calma) in carrying things for delivery to Commander REG of Reco 4. 66In his testimony he stated that the Organizational Committee, of which he was a member, had the duty to go to the barrios to teach and convince ... We do not believe that mere membership in the 67 Communist Party or in the CLO renders the members liable either the people to join the HMB. of rebellion or of conspiracy to commit rebellion, because mere membership and nothing more merely implied advocacy of abstract Testifying in his behalf, this appellant said that he was maltreated at theory or principle without any action being induced thereby; and Camp Murphy to make him sign the statement marked as Exhibits EE to EE- that such advocacy becomes criminal only if it is coupled with 4. 68 However, Sotero Morales, who was the one who investigated him, action or advocacy of action, namely actual rebellion or conspiracy testified that Marcos Medina did not complain of any maltreatment when he to commit rebellion, or acts conducive thereto or evincing the same. was investigated. 69

We, therefore, declare that appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr. is not guilty We do not agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant as an accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion, nor can We is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. There is no hold him guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion. He should, evidence that he actually participated in any of the raids and ambushes therefore, be absolved of the charge against him in the information. alleged in the information although he admitted that he was a Huk. The evidence shows that he simply helped HMB couriers. We hold, however, that Neither can We find him guilty of having committed a crime under the his being a member of the HMB is a sufficient basis to find him guilty of the Anti-Subversion Law (R.A. No. 1700) which outlaws the Communist Party of crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion, punishable under Article 136 of the the Philippines, because this law was enacted only in the year 1957, Revised Penal Code. In the case of People vs. Hernandez, supra, this Court whereas the information against this appellant was filed on October 27, held:. 1950. Again, in the case of People vs. Hernandez, supra, this Court held: On the other hand, membership in the HMB (Hukbalahap), On the other hand, Rep. Act 1700, known as the Anti- implies participation in an actual uprising or rebellion to secure, as Subversion Act, which penalizes membership in any organization or the Huks pretend, the liberation of the peasants and laboring class from thraldom. By membership in the HMB, one already advocates mga Familia" that should be printed; and in another letter he was requesting uprising and the use of force, and by such membership he agrees from Maclang P18.40 for the printing of 600 copies of the "Mapagpalaya", or conspires that force be used to secure the ends of the party. the official organ of the HMB. 72 Using the name Leodones, this appellant Such membership, therefore, even if there is nothing more, renders wrote subversive poems calculated to arouse popular support for the cause the member guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion punishable by of the CPP and the HMB. One such poem, entitled "Ang Dalawangpung law. Taon Buhay ng PKP", eulogized the CPP, advocated armed revolt against the government and the liquidation of Liberals, Nacionalistas, and priests. And when a Huk member, not content with his membership, The other poems were "Gumising Ka Kabataan", "Maiksing Kasaysayan ng does anything to promote the ends of the rebellion like soliciting Kilusang Magbubukid sa Filipinas", "Ang Ikawalong Taong Kaarawan ng Hukbong Magpapalaya ng Bayan", and "Ang Sigaw ng Bayan Api". All these contributions, or acting as courier, he thereby becomes guilty of 73 conspiracy, unless he takes to the field and joins in the rebellion of poems were published in the different issues of the TITIS. uprising, in which latter case he commits rebellion. We find that appellant Cesario Torres played a very vital role in the We therefore declare appellant Marcos Medina guilty of the crime of promotion of the armed struggle that was jointly prosecuted by the CPP and conspiracy to commit rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly. the HMB. He was admittedly a member of both the CPP and the HMB. His membership with the HMB alone is a sufficient basis to hold him guilty of the crime of conspiring to commit rebellion. We believe, however, that he did 11. Appeal of Cesario Torres more than to conspire with the leaders of the HMB and the CPP to commit rebellion. He was in charge of the publication and circulation of the TITIS Appellant Cesario Torres was arrested by the agents of the MIS and which was the official organ the CPP, and of the "Mapagpalaya" which was the Manila Police on October 19, 1950 at his residence at 742 Colorado St., the official organ of the HMB. It is through these two organs that the people Manila, along with his wife, Rosenda Canlas Torres, and his co-accused, were being aroused to support the armed struggle against the government. Arturo Baking. From his house the agents seized subversive documents, While it is true that this appellant did not go to the field to take up arms, the and articles including a typewriter, a mimeographing machine, provocative poems and articles that he wrote and published in the official mimeographing ink, stencils, coupon bond papers. Some of these coupon organs of the CPP and the HMB were just as effective to prosecute the bond papers were blank but bore the signature of Luis M. Taruc. rebellion as the guns and other weapons used by the HMB in the field.

The evidence shows that: We agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be Appellant Cesario Torres used the aliases: Leo and Leodones, and he punished accordingly. was also known as Cesario Yacat Torres. He admitted being a member of the HMB and of the CPP, that he was head of the Technical Office under the 12. Appeal of Arturo Baking Propaganda Branch of the CPP, and as the head of that office he was in charge of typing and mimeographing the CPP documents and leaflets, and Appellant Arturo Baking was arrested by the agents of MIS and the 70 the TITIS which was the official organ of the CPP. Manila Police on October 19, 1950 at 742 Colorado St., Manila, along with his co-accused Cesario Torres and the latter's wife, Rosenda Canlas Torres. Documents were presented during the trial which clearly prove that He is the nephew of appellant Angel Baking. this appellant was in regular communication with Federico Maclang, one of the top leaders of the CPP and of the rebellion. Thus, in one letter, he It is shown by the evidence that: explained to Maclang why the issue of the TITIS for the previous week did not come out; and in another letter he informed Maclang that he would try to make the TITIS come out every Sunday morning. 71 In a letter to Maclang Appellant Arturo Baking used the aliases Red Bell, Eduardo Santos, dated April 6, 1950, he inquired for the number of copies of "Suliranin ng Arturo Calma and Ed. He became a member of the CPP in December 1949. 74 In August 1950 he was employed by his co-accused Cesario Torres as assistant in the publication center of the CPP at 742 Colorado St., Manila. October 18, 1950, along with Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Victorina G. He was one of those assigned as typist in the Educational Department of the Rodriguez and Pedro Vicencio. CPP, it having been admitted by him that the publication center was under the Educational Department of the CPP. As assistant to Cesario Torres he The evidence shows that: helped in the printing, mimeographing and distribution of the TITIS, the official organ of the CPP; as well as in the printing, mimeographing and distribution of HMB documents. His work included the procurement of office Appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez used two aliases: Lakindanum supplies, and the keeping of records of CPP documents that had been (Laquindanum) and Sammy. He was a member of the National Finance 78 printed and distributed to the different officials and organizational units of the Committee of the CPP since October 21, 1949. When he was arrested on CPP.75 This appellant had studied and finished the prescribed secondary October 18, 1950 there were found in his house some P42,376.00 in paper course of the Communist Party, and was given a certificate, "Katibayan sa currency in different denominations. Of the money that was found in his Pagaaral", attesting to his having satisfactorily completed such subjects as house, it was conclusively shown that 65 P100-bills, 60 P50-bills, P145.00 in the "History of National Liberation Movement", "Dialektika ng Materialismo", PNB circulating notes and $310.00 formed part of the money that were taken "Political Economy", "Estado at Himagsikan", and "Ang Pagkakatatag ng from the office of the Provincial Treasurer in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, when the Partido". 76 By his own declaration this appellant admitted having made HMB raided that town in the night of August 26, 1950. We have stated at the studies about communism, took rigid tests in order to be accepted to the early part of this opinion that on the night of August 26, 1950 some 400 Huks CPP, and that he believed a communist government should be implanted in raided Sta. Cruz. The cashier of the office of the Provincial Treasurer was the Philippines. In his testimony, he stated that he had developed a deep- forced by the Huks at gun point to open the vault of the provincial treasury seated hatred against the agents of the law because of the predatory acts from which the Huks took some P80,600.00. It happened that the Provincial that were committed by them on poor fishermen, and that on several Treasurer of Laguna, Mr. Balbino Kabigting, had a record of the serial occasions, especially at various checkpoints, he saw the harsh treatment numbers of the paper money that was deposited in the provincial treasury done by the Constabulary soldiers to civilians. He bewailed the graft and which were taken by the Huks, and after that raid Mr. Kabigting even issued corruption in the government. 77 a warning to the public about the loss of the money — mentioning in the warning the serial numbers of the money taken. It was found out that the serial numbers of the 65 P100-bills, of the 60 P50-bills, of the P145.00 PNB We have no doubt that this appellant is a confirmed communist, and circulating notes, and of the $310 found in the house of appellant Rodriguez that he was in full sympathy with the armed struggle being promoted by the tallied with the serial numbers of the paper currency that was taken from the leaders of the CPP and the HMB in order to overthrow the existing provincial treasury of Laguna. This appellant, in his testimony, declared that government of the Philippines. Upon appraisal of the evidence, however, We the paper money whose serial numbers tallied with those paper money that cannot agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as were taken from the provincial treasury of Laguna formed part of the money principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. We find that he was the that Jose Lava (one of the appellant herein) brought to his house. assistant of appellant Cesario Torres, who was entrusted with the publication Considering the high position that appellant Lava held in the CPP and the and distribution of the official organs of the CPP and the HMB, as well as of fact that the armed operations of the HMB were promoted and directed by the printing and distribution of the documents of these two organizations. the Secretariat of the CPP, of which Lava was a member, and the fact that Being an assistant of appellant Cesario Tores whom We have declared to be appellant Simeon Rodriguez was a member of the National Finance a principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, We hold that Committee, it is easy to understand why Jose Lava brought to this appellant appellant Arturo Baking is guilty as a mere participant in the commission of that money which was taken by the HMB from the provincial treasury of the crime of rebellion, under the second paragraph of the Article 135 of the Laguna. Significantly, one of the evidence presented during the trial was a Revised Penal Code, and he should be punished accordingly. receipt, dated October 5, 1950, signed by Lakindanum in favor of Com. Torres (Casto Alejandrino, a well-known HMB commander) of Reco 4, 13. Appeal of Simeon G. Rodriguez acknowledging receipt of P32,740, $310, and P145 in PNB circulating notes. 79 It could be that Jose Lava made Rodriguez prepare that receipt Appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez was arrested by the agents of the MIS when he delivered the money, and the receipt was intended to be sent to and the Manila Polioe in his house at 683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, on Com. Torres to assure the latter that the money was delivered to Rodriguez. That receipt was among the papers seized when these appellants were arrested. This is a clear indication of the connection of appellant Simeon 14. Appeal of Marciano de Leon Rodriguez to the armed operations of the HMB, and the coordinated work of the leaders of the CPP and of the HMB in the armed uprising. Appellant Marciano de Leon was arrested, together with Angel Baking at Room 504, Samanillo Building, Escolta, Manila, on October 19, 1950. He There are other documents clearly indicating the connection of used the aliases Mar and Marcial. At the time of his arrest, he worked in the appellant Rodriguez to the HMB commanders in the field: (1) There is a Personnel Section at the Headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary. He letter dated October 13, 1950, addressed to Com. Lakindanum (Simeon G. admitted having supplied his co-accused Federico Bautista with government Rodriguez) coming from Com. Torres (Casto Alejandrino) wherein the latter documents and confidential information regarding the HMB from the PC acknowledged receipt of the letter and articles that were sent to him by Com. Headquarters. These were: 86 Lakindanum. This letter also instructed Lakindanum not to send the watches 80 to Reco 4. (2) There is another letter dated October 13, 1950, of Com. 1. Memorandum to all PC Commander re Huk infiltration. Lanao, addressed to Com. Lakindanum, wherein the former was requisitioning from Lakindanum a radio set. In this letter Com. Lanao, among others, said: "We would make the attempt to provide you with an extra ration 2. Memorandum to all PC Commanders re Loyalty Status of all PC of camote leaves when you visit us again". 81 This statement in the letter of personnel. Com. Lanao indicates that appellant Simeon Rodriguez used to visit the men in the field. (3) There is still another letter that came from Com. Amor, 3. Memorandum on PC-Civilian Relations. addressed to Com. Lakindanum, wherein the former acknowledged receipt of all the things, including a radio tester costing P30.00, that the latter had 4. List of PC Agents and their addresses. sent to him. 82(4) Then there is a letter written by herein appellant to Com. Beria (Federico Maclang) stating that he delivered the tester to Com. Reg in the absence from camp of Com. Torres. 83 (5) There is a receipt showing that 5. List of persons wanted by the PC. appellant Rodriguez signed in the name of the National Finance Committee, acknowledging receipt of the amount of P705.00. 84 (6) There is still another 6. Letter on the subject: "Yellow Journalism." receipt signed by herein appellant acknowledging receipt of P1,200 from the National Finance Committee, which was prepared for accounting 7. U.S. Army Technical Manuals and Field Manuals. purposes. 85

We concur with what the lower court said about this appellant: This appellant admitted, in his testimony, his close association with "Considering the nature of the documents he admitted in his confession to Jose Lava. He also said that he was inclined to believe in the tenets of have been furnished by him to Federico Bautista, the contents of his communism and the use of force in case the people decide to take political confession and the accessibility to him of those documents by reason of his power in their hands. position in the Personnel Section of the Philippine Constabulary, the Court is inclined to believe that he also took part in the conspiracy to overthrow the We have carefully examined the evidence of the prosecution against government by armed struggle and did his bit by furnishing Federico this appellant, and also the evidence which he presented in his defense — Bautista with information and records regarding the HMB activities consisting of his own testimony mainly denying the positive evidences obtainable from the PC Headquarters." We do not agree with the lower against him and of the testimonies of witnesses vouching for his good court, however, that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of character and the fact that he was a businessman — and We have arrived at the crime of rebellion. Considering the top position of Federico Bautista in the conclusion that this appellant is one of the top communist leaders who the CPP hierarchy, it cannot be denied that appellant Marciano de Leon, by had promoted and maintained the armed operations of the HMB in the field. giving the information hereinabove stated to Federico Bautista, had We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Simeon G. cooperated or helped in the prosecution of the armed rebellion. We hold this Rodriguez is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion; appellant guilty as a mere participant in the commission of the crime of and he should be punished accordingly. rebellion, under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and should be punished accordingly. 15. Appeal of Honofre Mangila Honofre Mangila is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion and that he should be punished accordingly. We find, by the evidence, that: 16. Appeal of Cenon Bungay Appellant Honofre Mangila was arrested on November 22, 1950 at 215 Leveriza, Pasay City. He used thealiases Miller and Tommy. He We find, by the evidence, that: admitted being a communist — in fact, he said he was proud to be a communist — and being a member of the Central Committee of the CPP. He Appellant Cenon Bungay was arrested by Vicente Roco of the 20th was also a member of the Trade Union Division (TUD) of the CPP. In the BCT and some members of the Manila Police on November 21, 1950, at 432 meeting of the Secretariat of the CPP on September 1, 1950, appellant Isabel, Sampaloc, Manila. This appellant used the alias Rufing. Mangila was appointed auditor of funds and books of account of the National Finance Commission (NFC). 87 He actually audited the financial statements of the NFC for the months of April, May and June, 1950; Mangila's auditing In written statements, he admitted that he joined the Huks in 1946, of the National Finance Commission's account was approved by the and at the time of his arrest on November 21, 1950 he was the commander Secretariat in its meeting of September 22, 1950. He was also the chairman of the HMB in the province of Batangas and the G-3 of Field Command (FC) of the organizational department (OD) for Manila under the Organizational No. 3 of the HMB. While testifying in open court, he declared that as the Bureau of the CPP. 88 HMB commander he had 1,300 fully armed men (equivalent to 4 HMB battalions) under him, and as a Huk commander he had been receiving directives from the higher authorities of the HMB. He revealed that Luis There is no question that this appellant is one of the top men in the Taruc was the Supreme of the HMB. 90 He also admitted his direct hierarchy of the CPP. He was a member of the Central Committee which is participation in an encounter between the HMB and the government forces the body second only to the National Congress of the CPP. When the in Plaridel, Bulacan, on March 27, 1950. He stated that in obedience to an National Congress is not in session it is this Central Committee that makes order from Regional Command No. 4, he led his unit in the raid of San Pablo decisions for the party. While testifying in his behalf he revealed his strong City on March 29, 1950, resulting in the death of Maj. Alicbusan. He said that communist party discipline when he declined to reveal, upon being cross- their purpose was to overthrow the government by force, and to establish the examined, the identity of the other members of the Central Committee, and "New Democracy." 91 He also declared that he joined the Huks in 1942 the members of the National Congress and of the Politburo. While testifying because of poverty; that his parents were tenants in Hacienda Bahay Pare he was very outspoken in indicting the existing economic and social order in at Candaba, Pampanga; that he stopped schooling after the 7th grade in the country, and asserted that it is only under the Communist Party when the order to help support his parents and ten brothers and sisters; that realizing laboring class can expect a bright future. the miserable conditions of the tenants, he joined the "Aguman Ding Talapagobra" (ADT), the aim of which was the amelioration of the tenants; During the trial letters signed by "Miller" or "Tommy", were presented that through this organization he realized that the tenants must organize to in evidence. Those were letters addressed to Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) and promote their welfare and to prevent the abuses of landlords. He further to Luming (Salome Cruz) concerning financial matters, meetings and other declared that in spite of the sacrifices of the Huks for 3 years during the activities in the CPP. 89 Japanese occupation, the Huks representing the countless tenants, were ignored by the U.S. armed forces and by the Commonwealth Government; Considering that it is the CPP, as We have shown, that promotes and and having been harassed, persecuted and frustrated in their aims to maintains the armed operations of the HMB against the government, and ameliorate the condition of the masses, the Huks went underground. considering that appellant Honofre Mangila is a member of the Central According to him the Huks felt more persecuted when Luis Taruc, the Committee which is the most powerful body in the CPP when its National successful congressional candidate in 1946 of the Democratic Alliance, was denied his seat in Congress, and that they lost faith in the government due Congress is not in session, and considering further that this appellant was 92 even appointed auditor to audit the funds of the CPP, We believe that this to the frauds and terrorism perpetrated in the elections that followed. appellant is one of the principal leaders of the rebellion as charged in the information. We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Appellant Bungay admitted that the HMB had to use force in order to where couriers go to deliver, or to get, letters or articles intended for RECOS change the administration. He said that the men under him used arms given in the field, clearly indicate that this appellant was actively cooperating in the by the American soldiers and Communist sympathizers. He also revealed efforts of those promoting the rebellion. Being 20 years of age and a college that while he was the Huk commander at Cavite, he had two encounters with student, it can be expected that he knew that he was doing something for government forces, one at Aliang, Malabon on February 18, 1950; and the the communists and the Huks. More so, because he was living with Simeon other at Alfonso, Cavite, on February 22, 1950. These admissions were fully G. Rodriguez, one of the top leaders of the CPP. He admitted having corroborated by Benjamin Advincula, a ranking officer and Secretary of Reco delivered notes sent by Simeon Rodriguez to Angel Baking, another top Command No. 4 of the HMB and by Ronald Dorsey, a former Huk leader of the CPP. The house of Rodriguez was the meeting place of CPP member. 93 leaders.lawphil.ñet

There is no doubt that Cenon Bungay, as Huk commander, was also a We find this appellant guilty as a mere participant in the commission of leader in the rebellion. We agree with the finding of the lower court that this the crime of rebellion, under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, Revised Penal Code, and he should be punished accordingly. and he should be punished accordingly. 18. Appeal of Felipe Engreso 17. Appeal of Pedro T. Vicencio Appellant Felipe Engreso was arrested on October 18, 1950 at 1938 Appellant Pedro T. Vicencio was arrested on October 18, 1950 at 683 Int. 7, Felix Huertas St., Manila, along with Federico Maclang and Julita Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, along with Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Rodriguez. At the time of his arrest, he was about 15 years old, and was Simeon Rodriguez and Victorina Rodriguez. He was also known as Pedring. living as a houseboy of one known to him as Ambrosio Reyes. In a statement, signed by him at Camp Murphy after his arrest, he admitted that he used to run errands, bringing foodstuffs, medicines and other It appears that in a written statement that he signed before the MIS supplies intended for the HMB, and also delivering packages that were agents, this appellant admitted having delivered letters to Mr. Espiritu labelled R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5, which stood for Reco-1, Reco-2, etc., (Ramon Espiritu) at Andalucia St., Manila; to Cesar (Cesario Torres) at 742 respectively, to Andalucia Street where Rosario Vda. de Santos received 94 Colorado, Manila; and to Gaston (Jose Lava) at Celeridad St., Pasay City. It them. We have found, in this decision, that Rosario Vda. de Santos was also appears in that statement that he used to get the TITIS from Colorado working under Salome Cruz who was the chairman of the National St. (residence of Cesario Torres and the CPP publication center) to deliver Communications Division (NCD) of the CPP, and that she was in charge of them to Andalucia Street (residence of Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz and an outpost, checking the irregular couriers for Recos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Rosario Vda. de Santos) and retained one copy for Ambrosio Reyes. 96 Pangasinan, and she was staying at 1608-B Andalucia, Sampaloc, Manila. Testifying in his behalf, appellant Engreso declared that before his Testifying in his own behalf, appellant Vicencio denied being a arrest he never knew that his master, Ambrosio Reyes, is the accused member of the CPP nor of the HMB, although he stated that at the time of Federico Maclang. He came to know his master to be Federico Maclang only his arrest, he was studying the principles of communism, and that he when they were already detained at Muntinglupa. 97 sympathized with the Huks. At the time of his arrest this appellant was 20 years old, and he was a first year Liberal Arts student. He admitted in his testimony that he delivered to Angel Baking notes sent by Simeon Upon a careful study of the evidence against this appellant, We have Rodriguez. 95 come to the conclusion that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This appellant was only around 15 years old. We accept his testimony that he did not know that his master was Federico Maclang, While it is not shown that this appellant actually took part in the armed and that all the time he knew him to be Ambrosio Reyes. He was simply a operations of the HMB, his having delivered foodstuffs, medicines and other houseboy of Maclang. He had to obey orders to deliver letters or deliver supplies which were intended for the HMB, and his having delivered copies of TITIS. There is no showing that he knew the contents of the letters packages to Rosario Vda. de Santos who was in charge of the outpost that he was made to deliver, or that he knew the addressees to be communists. The Solicitor General recommends the acquittal of this four (4) months of prision mayor, with the accessories provided by law, and appellant upon the ground that there is no sufficient evidence to show his to pay their proportionate shares of the costs. criminal intent. We agree with the Solicitor General. We, therefore, acquit appellant Felipe Engreso of the charge against him in the information. Appellant Marcos Medina is found guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion under Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code, and he is x x x x x x x x x hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of five (5) years, four (4) months, and twenty (20) days of prision correccional and a fine of P2,000, with the IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from should accessories provided by law, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of be, as it is hereby, modified, as follows: insolvency, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

1. In G.R. No. L-4974 Appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr. is hereby acquitted, with costs de oficio.

Appellants Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon 3. In G.R. No. L-4976 Espiritu, Salome Cruz and Angel Baking are found guilty as principals in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first paragraph of Appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez is found guilty as principal in the Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and every one of them is hereby commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first paragraph of sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ten (10) years of prision mayor, and a Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer fine of P20,000, with the accessories provided by law, but without subsidiary imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision mayor and a fine of P20,000, with imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay their proportionate shares of the accessories provided by law, but without subsidiary imprisonment in the costs. case of insolvency, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

Appellant Rosario C. Vda. de Santos is found guilty as a participant in Appellant Marciano de Leon is found guilty as a participant in the the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second paragraph commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second paragraph of of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and she is hereby sentenced to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer suffer imprisonment of seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision imprisonment of seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor with mayor, with the accessories provided by law, and to pay her proportionate the accessories provided by law, and to pay his proportionate share of the share of the costs. costs.

2. In G.R. No. L-4975 4. In G.R. No. L-4977

Appellant Cesario Torres is found guilty as principal in the commission Appellants Honofre Mangila and Simeon Bungay are found guilty as of the crime of simple rebellion under the first paragraph of Article 135 of the principals in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first Revised Penal Code, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and every one of them ten (10) years of prision mayor, and a fine of P20,000, with the accessories is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ten (1O) years of prision mayor, and provided by law, but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, a fine of P20,000, with the accessories provided by law, but without and to pay his proportionate share of the costs. subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay their proportionate shares of the costs. Appellants Lamberto Magboo and Arturo Baking are found guilty as participants in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the 5. In G.R. No. L-4978 second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and every one of them is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of seven (7) years and Appellant Pedro T. Vicencio is found guilty as a participant in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer Precisely because of what I deem to be high estate that must be imprisonment of seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, with accorded liberty even in times of trouble and distress, I feel that additional the accessories provided by law, and to pay his proportionate share of the words might not be amiss. It would appear to me that the prosecution of the costs. accused herein having been started at a time when there appeared to be a clear danger to democratic institutions, the belief seemed to have gained Appellant Felipe Engreso is hereby acquitted, with costs de oficio. credence in certain circles that as far as these accused were concerned, there was no need to apply with rigor their constitutional rights. The Court takes judicial notice, that, except for appellants Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Sr., Pedro T. Vicencio, and Felipe Engreso who are That to me is a false thesis. It implies the weakness of a democracy to on provisional liberty under bail, all the rest of these appellants are detained, defend itself democratically. Under such view, a government could be spared and their detention dates back as of August, October or November, of the the threat from internal subversion, but what is saved is no longer the year 1950, as the case may be. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is government contemplated by the framers and the people who adopted the hereby directed to determine the period of detention that should be credited Constitution. to the appellants who are under detention, pursuant to the provisions of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, and to release immediately those Well has Justice Bengzon observed in his separate opinion in Nava v. appellants who are entitled to be credited with the period of their detention Gatmaitan: 2 "And in my opinion, one of the surest means to ease the equal to the penalty of imprisonment imposed upon them in this decision. It uprising is a sincere demonstration of this Government's adherence to the is so ordered. principles of the Constitution together with an impartial application thereof to all citizens, whether dissidents or not. Let the rebels have no reason to Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez and Capistrano, JJ., concur. apprehend that their comrades now under custody are being railroaded into Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., took no part. Muntinglupa, without benefit of those fundamental privileges which the Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J., are on leave. experience of the ages has deemed essential for the protection of all persons accused of crime before the tribunals of justice. Give them the assurance that the judiciary, ever mindful of its sacred mission will not, thru faulty cogitation or misplaced devotion, uphold any doubtful claims of Governmental power in diminution of individual rights, but will always cling to the principle uttered long ago by Chief Justice Marshall that when in doubt Separate Opinions as to the construction of the Constitution, "the Courts will favor personal liberty" ..."

Justice Tuason in another opinion rendered in that case would apply the constitutional rights with undeviating rigidity: "To the plea that the security of the State would be jeopardized by the release of the defendants on bail, FERNANDO, J., concurring: the answer is that the existence of danger is never a justification for courts to tamper with the fundamental rights expressly granted by the Constitution. I join my colleagues in giving assent to the well-written and exhaustive These rights are immutable, inflexible, yielding to no pressure of opinion of Justice Zaldivar, speaking for this Court, distinguished as it is by convenience, expediency, or the so-called "judicial statesmanship." The grasp of the relevant facts meticulously examined and narrated with clarity legislature itself cannot infringe them, and no court conscious of its as well as of the controlling legal principles that call for application. responsibilities and limitations would do so. If the Bill of Rights are Particularly noteworthy to my mind is the re-affirmation of our doctrine incompatible with stable government and a menace to the Nation, let the in People v. Hernandez, 1 with the present Chief Justice, who penned the Constitution be amended, or abolished. It is trite to say that, while the opinion, stressing the primacy of liberty even when the offense charged is Constitution stands, the courts of justice as the repository of civil liberty are 3 against the security of the state. bound to protect and maintain undiluted individual rights." It is extremely difficult to find cause for disagreement with the above Footnotes views for they accord with the fundamental postulate of this Government, namely, that the Constitution is supreme and this Court, as its ultimate 1G.R. Nos. L-6025 and L-6026, July 18, 1956; 99 Phil. 515, 520, guardian, is called upon to apply its provisions in the determination of actual 541, 547, 551. cases and controversies before it. Well has it been observed that it exists precisely to assure the protection of the citizen and the maintenance of his 2 constitutional rights. The exercise of this official duty requires that it gives 99 Phil. 515, 535. effect to the supreme law even to the extent in clear cases of setting aside legislative and executive action. 3Appellee's brief, pp. 180-182.

This is not to say that the judicial process takes place in a social void. 4People vs. Camerino, L-13484, May 20, 1960; U. S. vs. Cernias, The existence of an emergency is not a factor to be reckoned with lightly. 10 Phil. 682. The task of this Court in adjusting or harmonizing individual rights with the safety of the state, ordinarily one of utmost delicacy, then becomes even 5U. S. vs. Santiago, 41 Phil. 793. more formidable. The fact remains however that the regime established here is one of liberty of justice and of democracy. Belief in the theory of liberty is 6 not merely an echo of a discredited past. It remains a fighting faith. It is a People vs. Hernandez, supra; People vs. Romagosa, supra; and proclamation of the vitality of the democratic process. It rests on the People vs. Santos, supra. conviction deeply and profoundly held that given the choice, a free people will prefer to remain free. 7Tan It vs. Sun Insurance Office, 51 Phil. 212.

This is not to deny that force has to be met with force. This is not to 8Pages 61-62, t.s.n., Reconstitution. deny that the courts are not to hamper the efforts of the executive agencies to put down subversion in whatever form it may manifest itself and wherever 9Pages 33, 37, t.s.n., Reconstitution. it may make its appearance. This is not to deny that on the executive and its agents is conferred the authority to cope with rebellious activities. Such authority must be equal to the grave responsibility thus confronting it. 10Pages 429-432, t.s.n., Vol. III.

Nonetheless, even under such circumstances, our duty is clear. It is 11Page 548, t.s.n., Vol. III. not for us to abdicate our constitutional function. We cannot, just because of the danger sanction every step the executive authorities might take. If we do 12Page 410, t.s.n., Vol. III. so, we would lend comfort to the very forces seeking to undermine the government. They can assert, and with plausibility, that the Constitution no 13Sec. 23, Rule 132, Rules of Court. longer obtains. It is precisely in times of emergency that the role of the judiciary as guardian of constitutional rights becomes more pressing and inescapable, if the faith and confidence of the people in democracy in action 14Page 564, t.s.n., Vol. III; Cho Chun Chac vs. Garcia, 47 Phil. 530; are to be preserved unimpaired. Alejandrino vs. Reyes, 53 Phil. 974.

Since to my mind such a view is implicit in the opinion of Justice 15Anderson vs. State, 72 Ga. App. 487; 34 S.E. (2d) 110; Underhill Zaldivar, even if not expressly avowed, I yield my concurrence. Criminal Evidence, 5th ed., Vol. I, p. 430.

16Exhibit O-13-14, par. 1. 17Exhibit O-106-107, par. 2. 36Exhs. N-265-268; M-1570.

18Exhibit M-1726. 37Exhibit CC.

19Exhibit K-206. 38Exhs. O-91-92, par. 2; O-308-309, par. 2; pages 500-512, t.s.n., Vol. III. 20Exhibit O-582-589. 39Exh. O-106-107. 21Exhibit M-1806-1813. 40Exhibit M-25-26. 22Page 429, t.s.n., Vol. III. 41Exhibits O-99-101, par. 3; O-312, par. 4. 23Pages 433-434, t.s.n., Vol. III. 42Exhibit O-334-337, par. 6. 24Page 803, t.s.n., Vol. III. 43Exhibit O-643, par. 9. 25Exhs. N-77; N-212. 44Pages 433-434, t.s.n., Vol. III. 26Exhs. M-421-422; N-60. 45Exhibits HH-4 to HH-8; page 780, t.s.n., Vol. III. 27Exh. M-31-32, par. 18. 46Exhibits L-318; M-1330-1331; M-21; O-441-444; O-643, par. 9; O- 28Exh. O-473-474. 334-337, par. 10; pages 19, 26, t.s.n., Vol. III.

47 29Exh. M-280-283. Exhibits M-1241; M-1242-1243; M-1268-1269; M-248, M-260; O- 449; M-1257, M-1270 and M-1369. 30Exh. M-248-251. 48Exhibits M-1310; M-1365-1366. 31Exh. N-257-268. 49Exhibits C-318, par. 1; N-535-538. 32Exhs. N-269-271; M-1585. 50Exhibits M-1241, M-1255, M-1743, M-1765-1768. 33Exhs. N-175-176; O-480. 51Exhibit M-54. 34Exh. K-1396-1397. 52Exhibit M-159-162. 35Exhs. M-244-254; M-258-267; M-269. 53Exhibits M-152-153. 54Exhibit M-80. 72Exhibits M-171 and M-172.

55Pages 778-779, t.s.n., Vol. III; Exhibits M-54, M-56, M-57, M-58, 73Exhibits K-189, M-1660, M-1666 to M-1670. M-60, M-61, M-65. 74Exhibit W-3, par. 7. 56Exhibit O-281, par. 6. 75Exhibits W, W-1, K-208; Page 841, t.s.n. Vol. III. 57Exhibit O-316-317, par. 3. 76Exhibit L-145. 58Exhibit M-35-38, par. 15. 77Pages 834-836, t.s.n., Vol. III. 59Exhibit M-35-38, par. 15. 78Exhibit O-13-14, par. 1. 60Exhibit L-33-P to L-33 Pa. See also Exhibits L-33-c and L-33-d which had been shown to be Baking's handwritten outline of his 79Exhibits O-572, O-572a-1, O-572 ab-1. MEMO on the WCS. 80Exhibit O-577. 61Exhibits GG to GG-10. 81Exhibit O-578. 62Exhibits M-1241, M-1255, M-1244, M-1290-91; Pages 671- 673, t.s.n., Vol. II. 82Exhibit O-576. 63Exhibits DD-1, M-1423; Pages 654-657, t.s.n., Vol. II. 83Exhibit O-505-506. 64Exhibits EE to EE-4. 84Exhibit M-10. 65Page 743, t.s.n., Vol. III. 85Exhibit O-9. 66Exhibits EE-2 to EE-3. 86Exhibits BB to BB-7, p. 610, t.s.n, Vol. III. 67Pages 657-658, t.s.n., Vol. II. 87Exhibit O-643, par. 8; Pages 715, 729, t.s.n., Vol. III. 68Pages 744-746, t.s.n., Vol. III. 88Exhibits Z to Z-11. 69Page 669, t.s.n., Vol. III. 89Exhibits M-570, M-1472-1474. 70Exhibits V-V-4; Pages 626-628 t.s.n., Vol. II. 90Exhibits LL to LL-7; Pages 670, 673, t.s.n. Vol. III. 71Exhibits M-1054 and M-1056. 91Page 428, t.s.n., Vol. I; Page 671, t.s.n., Vol III.

92 Pages 634-35, 637, 666, 689, t.s.n., Vol. III.

93Pages 668-670, t.s.n., Vol. III.

94Pages 172, 196, 198, t.s.n., Vol. II; Page 682, t.s.n., Vol. IV; Pages 3 and 6, t.s.n., Vol. III.

95Exhibits JJ to JJ-7; Pages 3 and 6, t.s.n., Vol. III.

96Exhibits SS to SS-3.

97Pages 620-623, t.s.n., Vol. III.

FERNANDO, J., concurring:

1Phil. 515 (1958).

290 Phil. 172 (1951).

3At p. 206. JAIME W. SALAZAR, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 103, respondents.

NARVASA, J.:

Thirty-four years after it wrote history into our criminal jurisprudence, People vs. Hernandez 1 once more takes center stage as the focus of a confrontation at law that would re-examine, if not the validity of its doctrine, the limits of its applicability. To be sure, the intervening period saw a number Republic of the Philippines of similar cases 2 that took issue with the ruling-all with a marked lack of SUPREME COURT success-but none, it would Beem, where season and circumstance had Manila more effectively conspired to attract wide public attention and excite impassioned debate, even among laymen; none, certainly, which has seen EN BANC quite the kind and range of arguments that are now brought to bear on the same question. G.R. No. 92163 June 5, 1990 The facts are not in dispute. In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS. JUAN Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement PONCE ENRILE, petitioner officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of Investigation on vs. the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the Regional Trial JUDGE JAIME SALAZAR (Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court Court of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 9010941. The of Quezon City [Br. 103], SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR AURELIO warrant had issued on an information signed and earlier that day filed by a TRAMPE, PROSECUTOR FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS, AND CITY panel of prosecutors composed of Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR EULOGIO MANANQUIL, NATIONAL Trampe, State Prosecutor Ferdinand R. Abesamis and Assistant City BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DIRECTOR ALFREDO LIM, BRIG. GEN. Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., charging Senator Enrile, the spouses EDGAR DULA TORRES (Superintendent of the Northern Police District) Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of AND/ OR ANY AND ALL PERSONS WHO MAY HAVE ACTUAL CUSTODY rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed OVER THE PERSON OF JUAN PONCE ENRILE,respondents. during the period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI G.R. No. 92164 June 5, 1990 headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none having been recommended in the information and none fixed in the arrest warrant. The SPS. REBECCO E. PANLILIO AND ERLINDA E. PANLILIO, petitioners, following morning, February 28, 1990, he was brought to Camp Tomas vs. Karingal in Quezon City where he was given over to the custody of the PROSECUTORS FERNANDO DE LEON, AURELIO C. TRAMPE, Superintendent of the Northern Police District, Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula 3 FFRDINAND R. ABESAMIS, AND EULOGIO C. MANANQUIL, and HON. Torres. On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile, through counsel, which Hernandez was not concerned and to which, therefore, it should not filed the petition for habeas corpusherein (which was followed by a apply. supplemental petition filed on March 2, 1990), alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights in being, or having been: The parties were heard in oral argument, as scheduled, on March 6, 1990, after which the Court issued its Resolution of the same date 8 granting (a) held to answer for criminal offense which does not Senator Enrile and the Panlilio spouses provisional liberty conditioned upon exist in the statute books; their filing, within 24 hours from notice, cash or surety bonds of P100,000.00 (for Senator Enrile) and P200,000.00 (for the Panlilios), respectively. The (b) charged with a criminal offense in an information for Resolution stated that it was issued without prejudice to a more extended which no complaint was initially filed or preliminary resolution on the matter of the provisional liberty of the petitioners and investigation was conducted, hence was denied due stressed that it was not passing upon the legal issues raised in both cases. 9 process; Four Members of the Court voted against granting bail to Senator Enrile, and two 10 against granting bail to the Panlilios. (c) denied his right to bail; and The Court now addresses those issues insofar as they are raised and (d) arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant litigated in Senator Enrile's petition, G.R. No. 92163. issued without the judge who issued it first having personally determined the existence of probable cause. 4 The parties' oral and written pleas presented the Court with the following options: The Court issued the writ prayed for, returnable March 5, 1990 and set the plea for hearing on March 6, 1990. 5On March 5, 1990, the Solicitor General (a) abandon Hernandez and adopt the minority view filed a consolidated return 6 for the respondents in this case and in G.R. No. expressed in the main dissent of Justice Montemayor in 92164 7 Which had been contemporaneously but separately filed by two of said case that rebellion cannot absorb more serious Senator Enrile's co-accused, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and crimes, and that under Article 48 of the Revised Penal raised similar questions. Said return urged that the petitioners' case does not Code rebellion may properly be complexed with common fall within the Hernandez ruling because-and this is putting it very simply-the offenses, so-called; this option was suggested by the information in Hernandezcharged murders and other common crimes Solicitor General in oral argument although it is not offered committed as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion,whereas in his written pleadings; the information against Sen. Enrile et al. charged murder and frustrated murder committed on the occasion, but not in furtherance, of (b) hold Hernandez applicable only to offenses committed rebellion. Stated otherwise, the Solicitor General would distinguish between in furtherance, or as a necessary means for the the complex crime ("delito complejo") arising from an offense being a commission, of rebellion, but not to acts committed in the necessary means for committing another, which is referred to in the second course of a rebellion which also constitute "common" clause of Article 48, Revised Penal Code, and is the subject of crimes of grave or less grave character; the Hernandez ruling, and the compound crime ("delito compuesto") arising from a single act constituting two or more grave or less grave offenses (c) maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion referred to in the first clause of the same paragraph, with absorb all other offenses committed in its course, whether or not necessary to its commission or in furtherance case at bar. If murder were not complexed with rebellion, thereof. and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this could be done), the following penalties would be On the first option, eleven (11) Members of the Court voted against imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the crime of abandoning Hernandez. Two (2) Members felt that the doctrine should be re- rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision examined. 10-A In the view of the majority, the ruling remains good law, its mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon the substantive and logical bases have withstood all subsequent challenges and modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding 12 no new ones are presented here persuasive enough to warrant a complete years of prision mayor, and (2) for the crime of reversal. This view is reinforced by the fact that not too long ago, the murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to incumbent President, exercising her powers under the 1986 Freedom death, depending upon the modifying circumstances Constitution, saw fit to repeal, among others, Presidential Decree No. 942 of present. in other words, in the absence of aggravating the former regime which precisely sought to nullify or circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be neutralize Hernandezby enacting a new provision (Art. 142-A) into the imposed upon him. However, under Article 48 said penalty Revised Penal Code to the effect that "(w)hen by reason, or on the occasion, would have to be meted out to him, even in the absence of any of the crimes penalized in this Chapter (Chapter I of Title 3, which of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, includes rebellion), acts which constitute offenses upon which graver if construed in conformity with the theory of the penalties are imposed by law are committed, the penalty for the most prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant. serious offense in its maximum period shall be imposed upon the offender."' 11 In thus acting, the President in effect by legislative flat Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was enacted for the reinstated Hernandez as binding doctrine with the effect of law. The Court purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a can do no less than accord it the same recognition, absent any sufficiently penalty more severe than that which would be proper if the powerful reason against so doing. several acts performed by him were punished separately. In the words of Rodriguez Navarro: On the second option, the Court unanimously voted to reject the theory that Hernandez is, or should be, limited in its application to offenses La unificacion de penas en los casos de committed as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion and that concurso de delitos a que hace the ruling should not be interpreted as prohibiting the complexing of rebellion referencia este articulo (75 del Codigo with other common crimes committed on the occasion, but not in de 1932), esta basado francamente en furtherance, thereof. While four Members of the Court felt that the el principio pro reo.' (II Doctrina Penal proponents' arguments were not entirely devoid of merit, the consensus was del Tribunal Supremo de Espana, p. that they were not sufficient to overcome what appears to be the real thrust 2168.) of Hernandez to rule out the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed in its course under either of the aforecited clauses of Article 48, We are aware of the fact that this observation refers to as is made clear by the following excerpt from the majority opinion in that Article 71 (later 75) of the Spanish Penal Code (the case: counterpart of our Article 48), as amended in 1908 and then in 1932, reading: There is one other reason-and a fundamental one at that- why Article 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in the Las disposiciones del articulo anterior distinct acts. Instead of sentencing him for each crime no son aplicables en el caso de que un independently from the other, he must suffer the maximum solo hecho constituya dos o mas delitos, of the penalty for the more serious one, on the assumption o cuando el uno de ellos sea medio that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate necesario para cometer el otro. penalties for each offense. 12

En estos casos solo se impondra la The rejection of both options shapes and determines the primary ruling of pena correspondiente al delito mas the Court, which is that Hernandezremains binding doctrine operating to grave en su grado maximo, hasta el prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the limite que represents la suma de las que occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an pudieran imponerse, penando unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. separadamente los delitos. This, however, does not write finis to the case. Petitioner's guilt or innocence Cuando la pena asi computada exceda is not here inquired into, much less adjudged. That is for the trial court to do de este limite, se sancionaran los delitos at the proper time. The Court's ruling merely provides a take-off point for the por separado. (Rodriguez Navarro, disposition of other questions relevant to the petitioner's complaints about Doctrina Penal del Tribunal Supremo, the denial of his rights and to the propriety of the recourse he has taken. Vol. II, p. 2163) The Court rules further (by a vote of 11 to 3) that the information filed against and that our Article 48 does not contain the qualification the petitioner does in fact charge an offense. Disregarding the objectionable inserted in said amendment, restricting the imposition of phrasing that would complex rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated the penalty for the graver offense in its maximum period to murder, that indictment is to be read as charging simple rebellion. Thus, the case when it does not exceed the sum total of the in Hernandez, the Court said: penalties imposable if the acts charged were dealt with separately. The absence of said limitation in our Penal In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations of the Code does not, to our mind, affect substantially the spirit amended information against defendant-appellant Amado of said Article 48. Indeed, if one act constitutes two or V. Hernandez, the murders, arsons and robberies more offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of rebellion allegedly committed by said defendants, as said offenses put together. In directing that the penalty for means "necessary" (4) for the perpetration of said offense the graver offense be, in such case, imposed in its of rebellion; that the crime charged in the aforementioned maximum period, Article 48 could have had no other amended information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not purpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed arsons and robberies; that the maximum penalty separately. The reason for this benevolent spirit of article imposable under such charge cannot exceed twelve (12) 48 is readily discernible. When two or more crimes are the years of prision mayor and a fine of P2H,HHH; and that, in result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse conformity with the policy of this court in dealing with than when he commits said crimes thru separate and accused persons amenable to a similar punishment, said Petitioner finally claims that he was denied the right to bail. In the light of the defendant may be allowed bail. 13 Court's reaffirmation of Hernandez as applicable to petitioner's case, and of the logical and necessary corollary that the information against him should The plaint of petitioner's counsel that he is charged with a crime that does be considered as charging only the crime of simple rebellion, which is not exist in the statute books, while technically correct so far as the Court bailable before conviction, that must now be accepted as a correct has ruled that rebellion may not be complexed with other offenses proposition. But the question remains: Given the facts from which this case committed on the occasion thereof, must therefore be dismissed as a mere arose, was a petition for habeas corpus in this Court the appropriate vehicle flight of rhetoric. Read in the context ofHernandez, the information does for asserting a right to bail or vindicating its denial? indeed charge the petitioner with a crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion. The criminal case before the respondent Judge was the normal venue for invoking the petitioner's right to have provisional liberty pending trial and Was the petitioner charged without a complaint having been initially filed judgment. The original jurisdiction to grant or deny bail rested with said and/or preliminary investigation conducted? The record shows otherwise, respondent. The correct course was for petitioner to invoke that jurisdiction that a complaint against petitioner for simple rebellion was filed by the by filing a petition to be admitted to bail, claiming a right to bail per se by Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, and that on the strength of reason of the weakness of the evidence against him. Only after that remedy said complaint a preliminary investigation was conducted by the respondent was denied by the trial court should the review jurisdiction of this Court have prosecutors, culminating in the filing of the questioned information.14 There is been invoked, and even then, not without first applying to the Court of nothing inherently irregular or contrary to law in filing against a respondent Appeals if appropriate relief was also available there. an indictment for an offense different from what is charged in the initiatory complaint, if warranted by the evidence developed during the preliminary Even acceptance of petitioner's premise that going by the Hernandez ruling, investigation. the information charges a non-existent crime or, contrarily, theorizing on the same basis that it charges more than one offense, would not excuse or It is also contended that the respondent Judge issued the warrant for justify his improper choice of remedies. Under either hypothesis, the obvious petitioner's arrest without first personallydetermining the existence of recourse would have been a motion to quash brought in the criminal action 18 probable cause by examining under oath or affirmation the complainant and before the respondent Judge. his witnesses, in violation of Art. III, sec. 2, of the Constitution. 15 This Court has already ruled, however, that it is not the unavoidable duty of the judge to There thus seems to be no question that All the grounds upon which make such a personal examination, it being sufficient that he follows petitioner has founded the present petition, whether these went into the established procedure by personally evaluating the report and the supporting substance of what is charged in the information or imputed error or omission documents submitted by the prosecutor. 16 Petitioner claims that the warrant on the part of the prosecuting panel or of the respondent Judge in dealing of arrest issued barely one hour and twenty minutes after the case was with the charges against him, were originally justiciable in the criminal case raffled off to the respondent Judge, which hardly gave the latter sufficient before said Judge and should have been brought up there instead of directly time to personally go over the voluminous records of the preliminary to this Court. investigation. 17 Merely because said respondent had what some might consider only a relatively brief period within which to comply with that duty, There was and is no reason to assume that the resolution of any of these gives no reason to assume that he had not, or could not have, so complied; questions was beyond the ability or competence of the respondent Judge- nor does that single circumstance suffice to overcome the legal presumption indeed such an assumption would be demeaning and less than fair to our that official duty has been regularly performed. trial courts; none whatever to hold them to be of such complexity or transcendental importance as to disqualify every court, except this Court, (G.R. No. 92164) which is virtually Identical to that of petitioner Enrile in from deciding them; none, in short that would justify by passing established factualmilieu and is therefore determinable on the same principles already judicial processes designed to orderly move litigation through the hierarchy set forth. Said spouses have uncontestedly pleaded 20 that warrants of arrest of our courts. Parenthentically, this is the reason behind the vote of four issued against them as co-accused of petitioner Enrile in Criminal Case No. Members of the Court against the grant of bail to petitioner: the view that the 90-10941, that when they appeared before NBI Director Alfredo Lim in the trial court should not thus be precipitately ousted of its original jurisdiction to afternoon of March 1, 1990, they were taken into custody and detained grant or deny bail, and if it erred in that matter, denied an opportunity to without bail on the strength of said warrants in violation-they claim-of their correct its error. It makes no difference that the respondent Judge here constitutional rights. issued a warrant of arrest fixing no bail. Immemorial practice sanctions simply following the prosecutor's recommendation regarding bail, though it It may be that in the light of contemporary events, the act of rebellion has may be perceived as the better course for the judge motu proprio to set a lost that quitessentiany quixotic quality that justifies the relative leniency with 19 bail hearing where a capital offense is charged. It is, in any event, which it is regarded and punished by law, that present-day rebels are less incumbent on the accused as to whom no bail has been recommended or impelled by love of country than by lust for power and have become no fixed to claim the right to a bail hearing and thereby put to proof the strength better than mere terrorists to whom nothing, not even the sanctity of human or weakness of the evidence against him. life, is allowed to stand in the way of their ambitions. Nothing so underscores this aberration as the rash of seemingly senseless killings, bombings, It is apropos to point out that the present petition has triggered a rush to this kidnappings and assorted mayhem so much in the news these days, as Court of other parties in a similar situation, all apparently taking their cue often perpetrated against innocent civilians as against the military, but by from it, distrustful or contemptuous of the efficacy of seeking recourse in the and large attributable to, or even claimed by so-called rebels to be part of, regular manner just outlined. The proliferation of such pleas has only an ongoing rebellion. contributed to the delay that the petitioner may have hoped to avoid by coming directly to this Court. It is enough to give anyone pause-and the Court is no exception-that not even the crowded streets of our capital City seem safe from such unsettling Not only because popular interest seems focused on the outcome of the violence that is disruptive of the public peace and stymies every effort at present petition, but also because to wash the Court's hand off it on national economic recovery. There is an apparent need to restructure the law jurisdictional grounds would only compound the delay that it has already on rebellion, either to raise the penalty therefor or to clearly define and gone through, the Court now decides the same on the merits. But in so delimit the other offenses to be considered as absorbed thereby, so that it doing, the Court cannot express too strongly the view that said petition cannot be conveniently utilized as the umbrella for every sort of illegal interdicted the ordered and orderly progression of proceedings that should activity undertaken in its name. The Court has no power to effect such have started with the trial court and reached this Court only if the relief change, for it can only interpret the law as it stands at any given time, and appealed for was denied by the former and, in a proper case, by the Court of what is needed lies beyond interpretation. Hopefully, Congress will perceive Appeals on review. the need for promptly seizing the initiative in this matter, which is properly within its province. Let it be made very clear that hereafter the Court will no longer countenance, but will give short shrift to, pleas like the present, that clearly short-circuit the WHEREFORE, the Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciated judicial process and burden it with the resolution of issues properly within the in People vs. Hernandez, the questioned information filed against petitioners original competence of the lower courts. What has thus far been stated is Juan Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be equally applicable to and decisive of the petition of the Panlilio spouses read as charging simple rebellion only, hence said petitioners are entitled to bail, before final conviction, as a matter of right. The Court's earlier grant of crime which does not exist in our statute books. The charge was obviously bail to petitioners being merely provisional in character, the proceedings in intended to make the penalty for the most serious offense in its maximum both cases are ordered REMANDED to the respondent Judge to fix the period imposable upon the offender pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised amount of bail to be posted by the petitioners. Once bail is fixed by said Penal Code. Thus, no bail was recommended in the Information nor was any respondent for any of the petitioners, the corresponding bail bond flied with prescribed in the Warrant of Arrest issued by the Trial Court. this Court shall become functus oficio. No pronouncement as to costs. Under the attendant circumstances, therefore, to have filed a Motion to SO ORDERED. Quash before the lower Court would not have brought about the speedy relief from unlawful restraint that petitioner was seeking. During the Cruz, Gancayco and Regalado, JJ., concur. pendency of said Motion before the lower Court, petitioner could have continued to languish in detention. Besides, the Writ ofHabeas Corpus may Medialdea, J., concurs in G.R. No. 92164 but took no part in G.R. No. still issue even if another remedy, which is less effective, may be availed of 92163. (Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663).

Cortes and Griño-Aquino, JJ., are on leave. It is true that habeas corpus would ordinarily not he when a person is under custody by virtue of a process issued by a Court.

The Court, however, must have jurisdiction to issue the process. In this case, the Court below must be deemed to have been ousted of jurisdiction when it

illegally curtailed petitioner's liberty. Habeas corpus is thus available.

Separate Opinions The writ of habeas corpus is available to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. But where the detention or confinement is the result of a process issued by the court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or sentence, the writ MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring: ordinarily cannot be availed of. It may still be invoked though if the process, judgment or sentence proceeded I join my colleagues in holding that the Hernandez doctrine, which has been from a court or tribunal the jurisdiction of which may be with us for the past three decades, remains good law and, thus, should assailed. Even if it had authority to act at the outset, it is remain undisturbed, despite periodic challenges to it that, ironically, have now the prevailing doctrine that a deprivation of only served to strengthen its pronouncements. constitutional right, if shown to exist, would oust it of jurisdiction. In such a case, habeas corpus could be relied I take exception to the view, however, that habeas corpus was not the proper upon to regain one's liberty (Celeste vs. People, 31 SCRA remedy. 391) [Emphasis emphasis].

Had the Information filed below charged merely the simple crime of The Petition for habeas corpus was precisely premised on the violation of Rebellion, that proposition could have been plausible. But that Information petitioner's constitutional right to bail inasmuch as rebellion, under the charged Rebellion complexed with Murder and Multiple Frustrated Murder, a present state of the law, is a bailable offense and the crime for which petitioner stands accused of and for which he was denied bail is non-existent GUTIERREZ, JR., J., concurring: in law. I join the Court's decision to grant the petition. In reiterating the rule that While litigants should, as a rule, ascend the steps of the judicial ladder, under existing law rebellion may not be complexed with murder, the Court nothing should stop this Court from taking cognizance of petitions brought emphasizes that it cannot legislate a new-crime into existence nor prescribe before it raising urgent constitutional issues, any procedural flaw a penalty for its commission. That function is exclusively for Congress. notwithstanding. I write this separate opinion to make clear how I view certain issues arising The rules on habeas corpus are to be liberally construed from these cases, especially on how the defective informations filed by the (Ganaway v. Quilen, 42 Phil. 805), the writ of habeas prosecutors should have been treated. corpus being the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state I agree with the ponente that a petition for habeas corpus is ordinarily not the action. The scope and flexibility of the writ-its capacity to proper procedure to assert the right to bail. Under the special circumstances reach all manner of illegal detention-its ability to cut of this case, however, the petitioners had no other recourse. They had to through barriers of form and procedural mazes-have come to us. always been emphasized and jealously guarded by courts and lawmakers (Gumabon v. Director of Bureau of First, the trial court was certainly aware of the decision in People v. Prisons, 37 SCRA 420) [emphasis supplied]. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1956) that there is no such crime in our statute books as rebellion complexed with murder, that murder committed in The proliferation of cases in this Court, which followed in the wake of this connection with a rebellion is absorbed by the crime of rebellion, and that a Petition, was brought about by the insistence of the prosecution to charge resort to arms resulting in the destruction of life or property constitutes the crime of Rebellion complexed with other common offenses neither two or more offenses nor a complex crime but one crime-rebellion notwithstanding the fact that this Court had not yet ruled on the validity of pure and simple. that charge and had granted provisional liberty to petitioner. Second, Hernandez has been the law for 34 years. It has been reiterated in If, indeed, it is desired to make the crime of Rebellion a capital offense (now equally sensational cases. All lawyers and even law students are aware of punishable by reclusion perpetua), the remedy lies in legislation. But Article the doctrine. Attempts to have the doctrine re-examined have been 1 142-A of the Revised Penal Code, along with P.D. No. 942, were repealed, consistently rejected by this Court. for being "repressive," by EO No. 187 on 5 June 1987. EO 187 further explicitly provided that Article 134 (and others enumerated) of the Revised Third, President Marcos through the use of his then legislative powers, Penal Code was "restored to its full force and effect as it existed before said issued Pres. Decree 942, thereby installing the new crime of rebellion amendatory decrees." Having been so repealed, this Court is bereft of power complexed with offenses like murder where graver penalties are imposed by to legislate into existence, under the guise of re-examining a settled doctrine, law. However, President Aquino using her then legislative powers expressly a "creature unknown in law"- the complex crime of Rebellion with Murder. repealed PD 942 by issuing Exec. Order 187. She thereby erased the crime The remand of the case to the lower Court for further proceedings is in order. of rebellion complexed with murder and made it clear that The Writ of Habeas Corpushas served its purpose. the Hernandezdoctrine remains the controlling rule. The prosecution has not explained why it insists on resurrecting an offense expressly wiped out by the President. The prosecution, in effect, questions the action of the President in repealing a repressive decree, a decree which, according to the connected to the rebellion. We cannot use Article 48 of the Revised Penal repeal order, is violative of human rights. Code in lieu of still-to- be-enacted legislation. The killing of civilians during a rebel attack on military facilities furthers the rebellion and is part of the Fourth, any re-examination of the Hernandez doctrine brings the ex post rebellion. facto principle into the picture. Decisions of this Court form part of our legal system. Even if we declare that rebellion may be complexed with murder, The trial court was certainly aware of all the above considerations. I cannot our declaration can not be made retroactive where the effect is to imprison a understand why the trial Judge issued the warrant of arrest which person for a crime which did not exist until the Supreme Court reversed categorically states therein that the accused was not entitled to bail. The itself. petitioner was compelled to come to us so he would not be arrested without bail for a nonexistent crime. The trial court forgot to apply an established And fifth, the attempts to distinguish this case from the Hernandez case by doctrine of the Supreme Court. Worse, it issued a warrant which reversed 34 stressing that the killings charged in the information were committed "on the years of established procedure based on a well-known Supreme Court occasion of, but not a necessary means for, the commission of rebellion" ruling. result in outlandish consequences and ignore the basic nature of rebellion. Thus, under the prosecution theory a bomb dropped on PTV-4 which kills All courts should remember that they form part of an independent judicial government troopers results in simple rebellion because the act is a system; they do not belong to the prosecution service. A court should never necessary means to make the rebellion succeed. However, if the same play into the hands of the prosecution and blindly comply with its erroneous bomb also kills some civilians in the neighborhood, the dropping of the bomb manifestations. Faced with an information charging a manifestly non-existent becomes rebellion complexed with murder because the killing of civilians is crime, the duty of a trial court is to throw it out. Or, at the very least and not necessary for the success of a rebellion and, therefore, the killings are where possible, make it conform to the law. only "on the occasion of but not a 'necessary means for' the commission of rebellion. A lower court cannot re-examine and reverse a decision of the Supreme Court especially a decision consistently followed for 34 years. Where a This argument is puerile. Judge disagrees with a Supreme Court ruling, he is free to express his reservations in the body of his decision, order, or resolution. However, any The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. The dropping of one bomb judgment he renders, any order he prescribes, and any processes he cannot be isolated as a separate crime of rebellion. Neither should the issues must follow the Supreme Court precedent. A trial court has no dropping of one hundred bombs or the firing of thousands of machine gun jurisdiction to reverse or ignore precedents of the Supreme Court. In this bullets be broken up into a hundred or thousands of separate offenses, if particular case, it should have been the Solicitor General coming to this each bomb or each bullet happens to result in the destruction of life and Court to question the lower court's rejection of the application for a warrant property. The same act cannot be punishable by separate penalties of arrest without bail. It should have been the Solicitor-General provoking the depending on what strikes the fancy of prosecutors-punishment for the killing issue of re-examination instead of the petitioners asking to be freed from of soldiers or retribution for the deaths of civilians. The prosecution also their arrest for a non-existent crime. loses sight of the regrettable fact that in total war and in rebellion the killing of civilians, the laying waste of civilian economies, the massacre of innocent The principle bears repeating: people, the blowing up of passenger airplanes, and other acts of terrorism are all used by those engaged in rebellion. We cannot and should not try to Respondent Court of Appeals really was devoid of any ascertain the intent of rebels for each single act unless the act is plainly not choice at all. It could not have ruled in any other way on the legal question raised. This Tribunal having spoken, its I have gone over the records and pleadings furnished to the members of the duty was to obey. It is as simple as that. There is Supreme Court. I listened intently to the oral arguments during the hearing relevance to this excerpt from Barrera v. Barrera. (L- and it was quite apparent that the constitutional requirement of probable 31589, July 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 98) 'The delicate task of cause was not satisfied. In fact, in answer to my query for any other proofs ascertaining the significance that attaches to a to support the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the answer was that the constitutional or statutory provision, an executive order, a evidence would be submitted in due time to the trial court. procedural norm or a municipal ordinance is committed to the judiciary. It thus discharges a role no less crucial than The spouses Panlilio and one parent have been in the restaurant business that appertaining to the other two departments in the for decades. Under the records of these petitions, any restaurant owner or maintenance of the rule of law. To assure stability in legal hotel manager who serves food to rebels is a co-conspirator in the rebellion. relations and avoid confusion, it has to speak with one The absurdity of this proposition is apparent if we bear in mind that rebels voice. It does so with finality, logically and rightly, through ride in buses and jeepneys, eat meals in rural houses when mealtime finds the highest judicial organ, this Court. What it says then them in the vicinity, join weddings, fiestas, and other parties, play basketball should be definitive and authoritative, binding on those with barrio youths, attend masses and church services and otherwise mix occupying the lower ranks in the judicial hierarchy. They with people in various gatherings. Even if the hosts recognize them to be have to defer and to submit.' (Ibid, 107. The opinion of rebels and fail to shoo them away, it does not necessarily follow that the Justice Laurel in People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1937] was former are co-conspirators in a rebellion. cited). The ensuing paragraph of the opinion in Barrera further emphasizes the point: Such a thought was The only basis for probable cause shown by the records of the Panlilio case reiterated in an opinion of Justice J.B.L. Reyes and further is the alleged fact that the petitioners served food to rebels at the Enrile emphasized in these words: 'Judge Gaudencio Cloribel household and a hotel supervisor asked two or three of their waiters, without need not be reminded that the Supreme Court, by tradition reason, to go on a vacation. Clearly, a much, much stronger showing of and in our system of judicial administration, has the last probable cause must be shown. word on what the law is; it is the final arbiter of any justifiable controversy. There is only one Supreme Court In Salonga v. Cruz Paño, 134 SCRA 438 (1985), then Senator Salonga was from whose decisions all other courts should take their charged as a conspirator in the heinous bombing of innocent civilians bearings. (Ibid. Justice J.B.L. Reyes spoke thus in Albert v. because the man who planted the bomb had, sometime earlier, appeared in Court of First Instance of Manila (Br. VI), L-26364, May 29, a group photograph taken during a birthday party in the United States with 1968, 23 SCRA 948, 961. (Tugade v. Court of Appeals, 85 the Senator and other guests. It was a case of conspiracy proved through a SCRA 226 [1978]. See also Albert v. Court of First group picture. Here, it is a case of conspiracy sought to proved through the Instance, 23 SCRA 948 [1968] and Vir-Jen Shipping and catering of food. Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 125 SCRA 577 [1983])

The Court in Salonga stressed: I find the situation in Spouses Panlilio v. Prosecutors Fernando de Leon, et al. even more inexplicable. In the case of the Panlilios, any probable cause to commit the non- existent crime of rebellion complexed with murder exists The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the only in the minds of the prosecutors, not in the records of the case. innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the state from useless charging homicide. In these cases, however, there is a deliberate attempt to and expensive trials. (Trocio v. Manta, 118 SCRA 241; charge the petitioners for an offense which this Court has ruled as non- citing Hashimn v. Boncan, 71 Phil. 216). The right to a existent. The prosecution wanted Hernandez to be reversed. Since the preliminary investigation is a statutory grant, and to prosecution has filed informations for a crime which, under our rulings, does withhold it would be to transgress constitutional due not exist, those informations should be treated as null and void. New process. (See People v. Oandasa, 25 SCRA 277) informations charging the correct offense should be filed. And in G.R. No. However, in order to satisfy the due process clause it is 92164, an extra effort should be made to see whether or not the Principle not enough that the preliminary investigation is conducted in Salonga v. Cruz Patio, et al. (supra) has been violated. in the sense of making sure that a transgressor shall not escape with impunity. A preliminary investigation serves The Court is not, in any way, preventing the Government from using more not only the purposes of the State. More important, it is a effective weapons to suppress rebellion. If the Government feels that the part of the guarantees of freedom and fair play which are current situation calls for the imposition of more severe penalties like death birthrights of all who live in our country. It is, therefore, or the creation of new crimes like rebellion complexed with murder, the imperative upon the fiscal or the judge as the case may remedy is with Congress, not the courts. be, to relieve the accused from the pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficient I, therefore, vote to GRANT the petitions and to ORDER the respondent to sustain a prima facie case or that no probable cause court to DISMISS the void informations for a non-existent crime. exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused. Although there is no general formula or fixed rule

for the determination of probable cause since the same must be decided in the light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence depends to a large FELICIANO, J., concurring: degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination, such a finding should not disregard the I concur in the result reached by the majority of the Court. facts before the judge nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason (See La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Fernandez, I believe that there are certain aspects of the Hernandez doctrine that, as an 129 SCRA 391). The judge or fiscal, therefore, should not abstract question of law, could stand reexamination or clarification. I have in go on with the prosecution in the hope that some credible mind in particular matters such as the correct or appropriate relationship evidence might later turn up during trial for this would be a between Article 134 and Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code. This is a flagrant violation of a basic right which the courts are matter which relates to the legal concept of rebellion in our legal system. If created to uphold. It bears repeating that the judiciary lives one examines the actual terms of Article 134 (entitled: "Rebellion or up to its mission by vitalizing and not denigrating Insurrection-How Committed"), it would appear that this Article specifies both constitutional rights. So it has been before. It should the overt acts and the criminal purpose which, when put together, would continue to be so. (id., pp. 461- 462) constitute the offense of rebellion. Thus, Article 134 states that "the crime of rebellion is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Because of the foregoing, I take exception to that part of the ponencia which Government "(i.e., the overt acts comprising rebellion), "for the purpose of will read the informations as charging simple rebellion. This case did not (i.e., the specific criminal intent or political objective) removing from the arise from innocent error. If an information charges murder but its contents allegiance to said government or its laws the territory of the Republic of the show only the ingredients of homicide, the Judge may rightly read it as Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, and most specially not where the statute construed is criminal in nature and of their powers or prerogatives." At the same time, Article 135 (entitled: the new doctrine is more onerous for the accused than the pre-existing one "Penalty for Rebellion or Insurrection.") sets out a listing of acts or particular (People v. Jabinal, 55 SCRA 607 [1974]; People v. Licera, 65 SCRA 270 measures which appear to fall under the rubric of rebellion or insurrection: [1975]; Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 [1971]). Moreover, the "engaging in war against the forces of the Government, destroying property non-retroactivity rule whether in respect of legislative acts or judicial or committing serious violence, exacting contributions or diverting public decisions has constitutional implications. The prevailing rule in the United funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated." Are States is that a judicial decision that retroactively renders an act criminal or these modalities of rebellion generally? Or are they particular modes by enhances the severity of the penalty prescribed for an offense, is vulnerable which those "who promote [ ], maintain [ ] or head [ ] a rebellion or to constitutional challenge based upon the rule against ex post facto laws insurrection" commit rebellion, or particular modes of participation in a and the due process clause (Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 US 347,12 L. rebellion by public officers or employees? Clearly, the scope of the legal Ed. 2d 894 [1964]; Marks v. U.S., 43 US 188, 51 L. Ed. 2d 260 [1977]; concept of rebellion relates to the distinction between, on the one hand, the Devine v. New Mexico Department of Corrections, 866 F. 2d 339 [1989]). indispensable acts or ingredients of the crime of rebellion under the Revised Penal Code and, on the other hand, differing optional modes of seeking to It is urged by the Solicitor General that the non-retroactivity principle does carry out the political or social objective of the rebellion or insurrection. not present any real problem for the reason that the Hernandez doctrine was based upon Article 48, second clause, of the Revised Penal Code and not The difficulty that is at once raised by any effort to examine once more even upon the first clause thereof, while it is precisely the first clause of Article 48 the above threshold questions is that the results of such re-examination may that the Government here invokes. It is, however, open to serious doubt well be that acts which under the Hernandez doctrine are absorbed into whether Hernandez can reasonably be so simply and sharply characterized. rebellion, may be characterized as separate or discrete offenses which, as a And assuming the Hernandez could be so characterized, subsequent cases matter of law, can either be prosecuted separately from rebellion or refer to the Hernandezdoctrine in terms which do not distinguish clearly prosecuted under the provisions of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, between the first clause and the second clause of Article 48 (e.g., People v. which (both Clause 1 and Clause 2 thereof) clearly envisage the existence of Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90 [1956]; People v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659 [1960]). at least two (2) distinct offenses. To reach such a conclusion in the case at Thus, it appears to me that the critical question would be whether a man of bar, would, as far as I can see, result in colliding with the fundamental non- ordinary intelligence would have necessarily read or understood retroactivity principle (Article 4, Civil Code; Article 22, Revised Penal Code; the Hernandez doctrine as referring exclusively to Article 48, second clause. both in relation to Article 8, Civil Code). Put in slightly different terms, the important question would be whether the new doctrine here proposed by the Government could fairly have been The non-retroactivity rule applies to statutes principally. But, statutes do not derived by a man of average intelligence (or counsel of average competence exist in the abstract but rather bear upon the lives of people with the specific in the law) from an examination of Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal form given them by judicial decisions interpreting their norms. Judicial Code as interpreted by the Court in the Hernandez and subsequent cases. decisions construing statutory norms give specific shape and content to such To formulate the question ill these terms would almost be to compel a norms. In time, the statutory norms become encrusted with the glosses negative answer, especially in view of the conclusions reached by the Court placed upon them by the courts and the glosses become integral with the and its several Members today. norms (Cf Caltex v. Palomar, 18 SCRA 247 [1966]). Thus, while in legal theory, judicial interpretation of a statute becomes part of the law as of the Finally, there appears to be no question that the new doctrine that the date that the law was originally enacted, I believe this theory is not to be Government would have us discover for the first time since the promulgation applied rigorously where a new judicial doctrine is announced, in particular of the Revised Penal Code in 1932, would be more onerous for the one overruling a previous existing doctrine of long standing (here, 36 years) respondent accused than the simple application of the Hernandez doctrine that murders which have been committed on the occasion of and in With all due respect to the views of my brethren in the Court, I believe that furtherance of the crime of rebellion must be deemed absorbed in the the Court, in the instant case, should have further considered that distinction offense of simple rebellion. between acts or offenses which are indispensable in the commission of rebellion, on the one hand, and those acts or offenses that are merely I agree therefore that the information in this case must be viewed as necessary but not indispensable in the commission of rebellion, on the other. charging only the crime of simple rebellion. The majority of the Court is correct in adopting, albeit impliedly, the view in Hernandez case that when an offense perpetrated as a necessary means of committing another, which is an element of the latter, the resulting interlocking crimes should be considered as only one simple offense and must be deemed outside the operation of the complex crime provision FERNAN, C.J., concurring and dissenting: (Article 48) of the Revised Penal Code. As in the case of Hernandez, the Court, however, failed in the instant case to distinguish what is indispensable I am constrained to write this separate opinion on what seems to be a rigid from what is merely necessary in the commission of an offense, resulting adherence to the 1956 ruling of the Court. The numerous challenges to the thus in the rule that common crimes like murder, arson, robbery, etc. doctrine enunciated in the case of People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 committed in the course or on the occasion of rebellion are absorbed or (1956) should at once demonstrate the need to redefine the applicability of included in the latter as elements thereof. said doctrine so as to make it conformable with accepted and well-settled principles of criminal law and jurisprudence. The relevance of the distinction is significant, more particularly, if applied to contemporaneous events happening in our country today. Theoretically, a To my mind, the Hernandez doctrine should not be interpreted as an all- crime which is indispensable in the commission of another must necessarily embracing authority for the rule that all common crimes committed on the be an element of the latter; but a crime that is merely necessary but not occasion, or in furtherance of, or in connection with, rebellion are absorbed indispensable in the commission of another is not an element of the latter, by the latter. To that extent, I cannot go along with the view of the majority in and if and when actually committed, brings the interlocking crime within the the instant case that 'Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to operation of the complex crime provision (Art. 48) of the Revised Penal prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the Code. With that distinction, common crimes committed against Government occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an forces and property in the course of rebellion are properly considered unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion" (p. 9, Decision). indispensable overt acts of rebellion and are logically absorbed in it as virtual ingredients or elements thereof, but common crimes committed against the The Hernandez doctrine has served the purpose for which it was appealed civilian population in the course or on the occasion of rebellion and in by the Court in 1956 during the communist-inspired rebellion of the Huks. furtherance thereof, may be necessary but not indispensable in committing The changes in our society in the span of 34 years since then have far- the latter, and may, therefore, not be considered as elements of the said reaching effects on the all-embracing applicability of the doctrine considering crime of rebellion. To illustrate, the deaths occurring during armed the emergence of alternative modes of seizing the powers of the duly confrontation or clashes between government forces and the rebels are constituted Government not contemplated in Articles 134 and 135 of the absorbed in the rebellion, and would be those resulting from the bombing of Revised Penal Code and their consequent effects on the lives of our people. military camps and installations, as these acts are indispensable in carrying The doctrine was good law then, but I believe that there is a certain aspect out the rebellion. But deliberately shooting down an unarmed innocent of the Hernandez doctrine that needs clarification. civilian to instill fear or create chaos among the people, although done in the furtherance of the rebellion, should not be absorbed in the crime of rebellion as the felonious act is merely necessary, but not indispensable. In the latter an accused who had been charged with simple rebellion, a bailable offense case, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code should apply. but who had been denied his right to bail by the respondent judge in violation of petitioner's constitutional right to bail. In view thereof, the responsibility of The occurrence of a coup d' etat in our country as a mode of seizing the fixing the amount of bail and approval thereof when filed, devolves upon us, powers of the duly-constituted government by staging surprise attacks or if complete relief is to be accorded to petitioner in the instant proceedings. occupying centers of powers, of which this Court should take judicial notice, has introduced a new dimension to the interpretation of the provisions on It is indubitable that before conviction, admission to bail is a matter of right to rebellion and insurrection in the Revised Penal Code. Generally, as a mode the defendant, accused before the Regional Trial Court of an offense less of seizing the powers of the duly constituted government, it falls within the than capital (Section 13 Article III, Constitution and Section 3, Rule 114). contemplation of rebellion under the Revised Penal Code, but, strictly Petitioner is, before Us, on a petition for habeas corpus praying, among construed, a coup d'etat per se is a class by itself. The manner of its others, for his provisional release on bail. Since the offense charged execution and the extent and magnitude of its effects on the lives of the (construed as simple rebellion) admits of bail, it is incumbent upon us m the people distinguish a coup d'etat from the traditional definition and modes of exercise of our jurisdiction over the petition for habeas corpus (Section 5 (1), commission attached by the Revised Penal Code to the crime of rebellion as Article VIII, Constitution; Section 2, Rule 102), to grant petitioner his right to applied by the Court to the communist-inspired rebellion of the 1950's. A bail and having admitted him to bail, to fix the amount thereof in such sums coup d'etat may be executed successfully without its perpetrators resorting as the court deems reasonable. Thereafter, the rules require that "the to the commission of other serious crimes such as murder, arson, proceedings together with the bond" shall forthwith be certified to the kidnapping, robbery, etc. because of the element of surprise and the precise respondent trial court (Section 14, Rule 102). timing of its execution. In extreme cases where murder, arson, robbery, and other common crimes are committed on the occasion of a coup d' etat, the Accordingly, the cash bond in the amount of P 100,000.00 posted by distinction referred to above on what is necessary and what is indispensable petitioner for his provisional release pursuant to our resolution dated March in the commission of the coup d'etat should be painstakingly considered as 6, 1990 should now be deemed and admitted as his bail bond for his the Court should have done in the case of herein petitioners. provisional release in the case (simple rebellion) pending before the respondent judge, without necessity of a remand for further proceedings, I concur in the result insofar as the other issues are resolved by the Court conditioned for his (petitioner's) appearance before the trial court to abide its but I take exception to the vote of the majority on the broad application of the order or judgment in the said case. Hernandez doctrine.

BIDIN, J., concurring and dissenting: SARMIENTO, J., concurring and dissenting: I concur with the majority opinion except as regards the dispositive portion thereof which orders the remand of the case to the respondent judge for I agree that People v. Hernandez 1 should abide. More than three decades further proceedings to fix the amount of bail to be posted by the petitioner. after which it was penned, it has firmly settled in the tomes of our jurisprudence as correct doctrine. I submit that the proceedings need not be remanded to the respondent judge for the purpose of fixing bail since we have construed the indictment herein As Hernandez put it, rebellion means "engaging m war against the forces of as charging simple rebellion, an offense which is bailable. the government," 2 which implies "resort to arms, requisition of property and Consequently,habeas corpus is the proper remedy available to petitioner as services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical injuries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and I dissent, however, from the majority opinion insofar as it holds that the unhappiness that war leaves in its wake. ..." 3 whether committed in information in question, while charging the complex crime of rebellion with furtherance, of as a necessary means for the commission, or in the course, murder and multiple frustrated murder, "is to be read as charging simple of rebellion. To say that rebellion may be complexed with any other offense, rebellion." in this case murder, is to play into a contradiction in terms because exactly, rebellion includes murder, among other possible crimes. The present cases are to be distinguished from the Hernandez case in at least one (1) material respect. In theHernandez case, this Court was I also agree that the information may stand as an accusation for simple confronted with an appealed case, i.e., Hernandez had been convicted by rebellion. Since the acts complained of as constituting rebellion have been the trial court of the complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson and embodied in the information, mention therein of murder as a complexing robbery, and his plea to be released on bail before the Supreme Court, offense is a surplusage, because in any case, the crime of rebellion is left pending appeal, gave birth to the now celebrated Hernandez doctrine that fully described. 4 the crime of rebellion complexed with murder, arson and robbery does not exist. In the present cases, on the other hand, the Court is confronted with At any rate, the government need only amend the information by a clerical an original case, i.e., where an information has been recently filed in the trial correction, since an amendment will not alter its substance. court and the petitioners have not even pleaded thereto.

I dissent, however, insofar as the majority orders the remand of the matter of Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in the Hernandez case, was "ground- bail to the lower court. I take it that when we, in our Resolution of March 6, breaking" on the issue of whether rebellion can be complexed with murder, 1990, granted the petitioner "provisional liberty" upon the filing of a bond of arson, robbery, etc. In the present cases, on the other hand, the prosecution P100,000.00, we granted him bail. The fact that we gave him "provisional and the lower court, not only had the Hernandez doctrine (as case law), but liberty" is in my view, of no moment, because bail means provisional liberty. Executive Order No. 187 of President Corazon C. Aquino dated 5 June 1987 It will serve no useful purpose to have the trial court hear the incident again (as statutory law) to bind them to the legal proposition that the crime of when we ourselves have been satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to rebellion complexed with murder, and multiple frustrated murder does not temporary freedom. exist.

And yet, notwithstanding these unmistakable and controlling beacon lights- absent when this Court laid down theHernandez doctrine-the prosecution PADILLA, J., dissenting: has insisted in filing, and the lower court has persisted in hearing, an information charging the petitioners with rebellion complexed with murder an multiple frustrated murder. That information is clearly a nullity and plainly I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it holds that the ruling in People void ab initio. Its head should not be allowed to surface. As a nullity in vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 "remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit substantive law, it charges nothing; it has given rise to nothing. The warrants the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the of arrest issued pursuant thereto are as null and void as the information on occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an which they are anchored. And, since the entire question of the information's unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion." validity is before the Court in these habeas corpus cases, I venture to say that the information is fatally defective,even under procedural law, because it charges more than one (1) offense (Sec. 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court). I submit then that it is not for this Court to energize a dead and, at best, period imposable upon the offender pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised fatally decrepit information by labelling or "baptizing" it differently from what it Penal Code. Thus, no bail was recommended in the Information nor was any announces itself to be. The prosecution must file an entirely new and prescribed in the Warrant of Arrest issued by the Trial Court. properinformation, for this entire exercise to merit the serious consideration of the courts. Under the attendant circumstances, therefore, to have filed a Motion to Quash before the lower Court would not have brought about the speedy ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the petitions, QUASH the warrants of relief from unlawful restraint that petitioner was seeking. During the arrest, and ORDER the information for rebellion complexed with murder and pendency of said Motion before the lower Court, petitioner could have multiple frustrated murder in Criminal Case Nos. 90-10941, RTC of Quezon continued to languish in detention. Besides, the Writ ofHabeas Corpus may City, DISMISSED. still issue even if another remedy, which is less effective, may be availed of (Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663). Consequently, the petitioners should be ordered permanently released and their bails cancelled. It is true that habeas corpus would ordinarily not he when a person is under custody by virtue of a process issued by a Court. Paras, J., concurs. The Court, however, must have jurisdiction to issue the process. In this case, the Court below must be deemed to have been ousted of jurisdiction when it illegally curtailed petitioner's liberty. Habeas corpus is thus available.

The writ of habeas corpus is available to relieve persons Separate Opinions from unlawful restraint. But where the detention or confinement is the result of a process issued by the court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or sentence, the writ MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring: ordinarily cannot be availed of. It may still be invoked though if the process, judgment or sentence proceeded I join my colleagues in holding that the Hernandez doctrine, which has been from a court or tribunal the jurisdiction of which may be with us for the past three decades, remains good law and, thus, should assailed. Even if it had authority to act at the outset, it is remain undisturbed, despite periodic challenges to it that, ironically, have now the prevailing doctrine that a deprivation of only served to strengthen its pronouncements. constitutional right, if shown to exist, would oust it of jurisdiction. In such a case, habeas corpus could be relied I take exception to the view, however, that habeas corpus was not the proper upon to regain one's liberty (Celeste vs. People, 31 SCRA remedy. 391) [Emphasis emphasis].

Had the Information filed below charged merely the simple crime of The Petition for habeas corpus was precisely premised on the violation of Rebellion, that proposition could have been plausible. But that Information petitioner's constitutional right to bail inasmuch as rebellion, under the charged Rebellion complexed with Murder and Multiple Frustrated Murder, a present state of the law, is a bailable offense and the crime for which crime which does not exist in our statute books. The charge was obviously petitioner stands accused of and for which he was denied bail is non-existent intended to make the penalty for the most serious offense in its maximum in law. While litigants should, as a rule, ascend the steps of the judicial ladder, I join the Court's decision to grant the petition. In reiterating the rule that nothing should stop this Court from taking cognizance of petitions brought under existing law rebellion may not be complexed with murder, the Court before it raising urgent constitutional issues, any procedural flaw emphasizes that it cannot legislate a new-crime into existence nor prescribe notwithstanding. a penalty for its commission. That function is exclusively for Congress.

The rules on habeas corpus are to be liberally construed I write this separate opinion to make clear how I view certain issues arising (Ganaway v. Quilen, 42 Phil. 805), the writ of habeas from these cases, especially on how the defective informations filed by the corpus being the fundamental instrument for safeguarding prosecutors should have been treated. individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action. The scope and flexibility of the writ-its capacity to I agree with the ponente that a petition for habeas corpus is ordinarily not the reach all manner of illegal detention-its ability to cut proper procedure to assert the right to bail. Under the special circumstances through barriers of form and procedural mazes-have of this case, however, the petitioners had no other recourse. They had to always been emphasized and jealously guarded by courts come to us. and lawmakers (Gumabon v. Director of Bureau of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420) [emphasis supplied]. First, the trial court was certainly aware of the decision in People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1956) that there is no such crime in our statute The proliferation of cases in this Court, which followed in the wake of this books as rebellion complexed with murder, that murder committed in Petition, was brought about by the insistence of the prosecution to charge connection with a rebellion is absorbed by the crime of rebellion, and that a the crime of Rebellion complexed with other common offenses resort to arms resulting in the destruction of life or property constitutes notwithstanding the fact that this Court had not yet ruled on the validity of neither two or more offenses nor a complex crime but one crime-rebellion that charge and had granted provisional liberty to petitioner. pure and simple.

If, indeed, it is desired to make the crime of Rebellion a capital offense (now Second, Hernandez has been the law for 34 years. It has been reiterated in punishable by reclusion perpetua), the remedy lies in legislation. But Article equally sensational cases. All lawyers and even law students are aware of 1 142-A of the Revised Penal Code, along with P.D. No. 942, were repealed, the doctrine. Attempts to have the doctrine re-examined have been for being "repressive," by EO No. 187 on 5 June 1987. EO 187 further consistently rejected by this Court. explicitly provided that Article 134 (and others enumerated) of the Revised Penal Code was "restored to its full force and effect as it existed before said Third, President Marcos through the use of his then legislative powers, amendatory decrees." Having been so repealed, this Court is bereft of power issued Pres. Decree 942, thereby installing the new crime of rebellion to legislate into existence, under the guise of re-examining a settled doctrine, complexed with offenses like murder where graver penalties are imposed by a "creature unknown in law"- the complex crime of Rebellion with Murder. law. However, President Aquino using her then legislative powers expressly The remand of the case to the lower Court for further proceedings is in order. repealed PD 942 by issuing Exec. Order 187. She thereby erased the crime The Writ of Habeas Corpushas served its purpose. of rebellion complexed with murder and made it clear that the Hernandezdoctrine remains the controlling rule. The prosecution has not explained why it insists on resurrecting an offense expressly wiped out by the President. The prosecution, in effect, questions the action of the GUTIERREZ, JR., J., concurring: President in repealing a repressive decree, a decree which, according to the repeal order, is violative of human rights. Fourth, any re-examination of the Hernandez doctrine brings the ex post The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. The dropping of one bomb facto principle into the picture. Decisions of this Court form part of our legal cannot be isolated as a separate crime of rebellion. Neither should the system. Even if we declare that rebellion may be complexed with murder, dropping of one hundred bombs or the firing of thousands of machine gun our declaration can not be made retroactive where the effect is to imprison a bullets be broken up into a hundred or thousands of separate offenses, if person for a crime which did not exist until the Supreme Court reversed each bomb or each bullet happens to result in the destruction of life and itself. property. The same act cannot be punishable by separate penalties depending on what strikes the fancy of prosecutors-punishment for the killing And fifth, the attempts to distinguish this case from the Hernandez case by of soldiers or retribution for the deaths of civilians. The prosecution also stressing that the killings charged in the information were committed "on the loses sight of the regrettable fact that in total war and in rebellion the killing occasion of, but not a necessary means for, the commission of rebellion" of civilians, the laying waste of civilian economies, the massacre of innocent result in outlandish consequences and ignore the basic nature of rebellion. people, the blowing up of passenger airplanes, and other acts of terrorism Thus, under the prosecution theory a bomb dropped on PTV-4 which kills are all used by those engaged in rebellion. We cannot and should not try to government troopers results in simple rebellion because the act is a ascertain the intent of rebels for each single act unless the act is plainly not necessary means to make the rebellion succeed. However, if the same connected to the rebellion. We cannot use Article 48 of the Revised Penal bomb also kills some civilians in the neighborhood, the dropping of the bomb Code in lieu of still-to- be-enacted legislation. The killing of civilians during a becomes rebellion complexed with murder because the killing of civilians is rebel attack on military facilities furthers the rebellion and is part of the not necessary for the success of a rebellion and, therefore, the killings are rebellion. only "on the occasion of but not a 'necessary means for' the commission of rebellion. The trial court was certainly aware of all the above considerations. I cannot understand why the trial Judge issued the warrant of arrest which This argument is puerile. categorically states therein that the accused was not entitled to bail. The petitioner was compelled to come to us so he would not be arrested without bail for a nonexistent crime. The trial court forgot to apply an established doctrine of the Supreme Court. Worse, it issued a warrant which reversed 34 years of established procedure based on a well-known Supreme Court ruling.

All courts should remember that they form part of an independent judicial system; they do not belong to the prosecution service. A court should never play into the hands of the prosecution and blindly comply with its erroneous manifestations. Faced with an information charging a manifestly non-existent crime, the duty of a trial court is to throw it out. Or, at the very least and where possible, make it conform to the law.

A lower court cannot re-examine and reverse a decision of the Supreme Court especially a decision consistently followed for 34 years. Where a Judge disagrees with a Supreme Court ruling, he is free to express his reservations in the body of his decision, order, or resolution. However, any judgment he renders, any order he prescribes, and any processes he bearings. (Ibid. Justice J.B.L. Reyes spoke thus in Albert v. issues must follow the Supreme Court precedent. A trial court has no Court of First Instance of Manila (Br. VI), L-26364, May 29, jurisdiction to reverse or ignore precedents of the Supreme Court. In this 1968, 23 SCRA 948, 961. (Tugade v. Court of Appeals, 85 particular case, it should have been the Solicitor General coming to this SCRA 226 [1978]. See also Albert v. Court of First Court to question the lower court's rejection of the application for a warrant Instance, 23 SCRA 948 [1968] and Vir-Jen Shipping and of arrest without bail. It should have been the Solicitor-General provoking the Marine Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 125 SCRA 577 [1983]) issue of re-examination instead of the petitioners asking to be freed from their arrest for a non-existent crime. I find the situation in Spouses Panlilio v. Prosecutors Fernando de Leon, et al. even more inexplicable. In the case of the Panlilios, any probable cause The principle bears repeating: to commit the non- existent crime of rebellion complexed with murder exists only in the minds of the prosecutors, not in the records of the case. Respondent Court of Appeals really was devoid of any choice at all. It could not have ruled in any other way on I have gone over the records and pleadings furnished to the members of the the legal question raised. This Tribunal having spoken, its Supreme Court. I listened intently to the oral arguments during the hearing duty was to obey. It is as simple as that. There is and it was quite apparent that the constitutional requirement of probable relevance to this excerpt from Barrera v. Barrera. (L- cause was not satisfied. In fact, in answer to my query for any other proofs 31589, July 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 98) 'The delicate task of to support the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the answer was that the ascertaining the significance that attaches to a evidence would be submitted in due time to the trial court. constitutional or statutory provision, an executive order, a procedural norm or a municipal ordinance is committed to The spouses Panlilio and one parent have been in the restaurant business the judiciary. It thus discharges a role no less crucial than for decades. Under the records of these petitions, any restaurant owner or that appertaining to the other two departments in the hotel manager who serves food to rebels is a co-conspirator in the rebellion. maintenance of the rule of law. To assure stability in legal The absurdity of this proposition is apparent if we bear in mind that rebels relations and avoid confusion, it has to speak with one ride in buses and jeepneys, eat meals in rural houses when mealtime finds voice. It does so with finality, logically and rightly, through them in the vicinity, join weddings, fiestas, and other parties, play basketball the highest judicial organ, this Court. What it says then with barrio youths, attend masses and church services and otherwise mix should be definitive and authoritative, binding on those with people in various gatherings. Even if the hosts recognize them to be occupying the lower ranks in the judicial hierarchy. They rebels and fail to shoo them away, it does not necessarily follow that the have to defer and to submit.' (Ibid, 107. The opinion of former are co-conspirators in a rebellion. Justice Laurel in People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1937] was cited). The ensuing paragraph of the opinion in Barrera The only basis for probable cause shown by the records of the Panlilio case further emphasizes the point: Such a thought was is the alleged fact that the petitioners served food to rebels at the Enrile reiterated in an opinion of Justice J.B.L. Reyes and further household and a hotel supervisor asked two or three of their waiters, without emphasized in these words: 'Judge Gaudencio Cloribel reason, to go on a vacation. Clearly, a much, much stronger showing of need not be reminded that the Supreme Court, by tradition probable cause must be shown. and in our system of judicial administration, has the last word on what the law is; it is the final arbiter of any In Salonga v. Cruz Paño, 134 SCRA 438 (1985), then Senator Salonga was justifiable controversy. There is only one Supreme Court charged as a conspirator in the heinous bombing of innocent civilians from whose decisions all other courts should take their because the man who planted the bomb had, sometime earlier, appeared in go on with the prosecution in the hope that some credible a group photograph taken during a birthday party in the United States with evidence might later turn up during trial for this would be a the Senator and other guests. It was a case of conspiracy proved through a flagrant violation of a basic right which the courts are group picture. Here, it is a case of conspiracy sought to proved through the created to uphold. It bears repeating that the judiciary lives catering of food. up to its mission by vitalizing and not denigrating constitutional rights. So it has been before. It should The Court in Salonga stressed: continue to be so. (id., pp. 461- 462)

The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the Because of the foregoing, I take exception to that part of the ponencia which innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive will read the informations as charging simple rebellion. This case did not prosecution, and to protect him from an open and public arise from innocent error. If an information charges murder but its contents accusation of crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety show only the ingredients of homicide, the Judge may rightly read it as of a public trial, and also to protect the state from useless charging homicide. In these cases, however, there is a deliberate attempt to and expensive trials. (Trocio v. Manta, 118 SCRA 241; charge the petitioners for an offense which this Court has ruled as non- citing Hashimn v. Boncan, 71 Phil. 216). The right to a existent. The prosecution wanted Hernandez to be reversed. Since the preliminary investigation is a statutory grant, and to prosecution has filed informations for a crime which, under our rulings, does withhold it would be to transgress constitutional due not exist, those informations should be treated as null and void. New process. (See People v. Oandasa, 25 SCRA 277) informations charging the correct offense should be filed. And in G.R. No. However, in order to satisfy the due process clause it is 92164, an extra effort should be made to see whether or not the Principle not enough that the preliminary investigation is conducted in Salonga v. Cruz Patio, et al. (supra) has been violated. in the sense of making sure that a transgressor shall not escape with impunity. A preliminary investigation serves The Court is not, in any way, preventing the Government from using more not only the purposes of the State. More important, it is a effective weapons to suppress rebellion. If the Government feels that the part of the guarantees of freedom and fair play which are current situation calls for the imposition of more severe penalties like death birthrights of all who live in our country. It is, therefore, or the creation of new crimes like rebellion complexed with murder, the imperative upon the fiscal or the judge as the case may remedy is with Congress, not the courts. be, to relieve the accused from the pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficient I, therefore, vote to GRANT the petitions and to ORDER the respondent to sustain a prima facie case or that no probable cause court to DISMISS the void informations for a non-existent crime. exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused. Although there is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable cause since the same must be decided in the light of the conditions obtaining in FELICIANO, J., concurring: given situations and its existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination, such a finding should not disregard the I concur in the result reached by the majority of the Court. facts before the judge nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason (See La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Fernandez, I believe that there are certain aspects of the Hernandez doctrine that, as an 129 SCRA 391). The judge or fiscal, therefore, should not abstract question of law, could stand reexamination or clarification. I have in mind in particular matters such as the correct or appropriate relationship The non-retroactivity rule applies to statutes principally. But, statutes do not between Article 134 and Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code. This is a exist in the abstract but rather bear upon the lives of people with the specific matter which relates to the legal concept of rebellion in our legal system. If form given them by judicial decisions interpreting their norms. Judicial one examines the actual terms of Article 134 (entitled: "Rebellion or decisions construing statutory norms give specific shape and content to such Insurrection-How Committed"), it would appear that this Article specifies both norms. In time, the statutory norms become encrusted with the glosses the overt acts and the criminal purpose which, when put together, would placed upon them by the courts and the glosses become integral with the constitute the offense of rebellion. Thus, Article 134 states that "the crime of norms (Cf Caltex v. Palomar, 18 SCRA 247 [1966]). Thus, while in legal rebellion is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the theory, judicial interpretation of a statute becomes part of the law as of the Government "(i.e., the overt acts comprising rebellion), "for the purpose of date that the law was originally enacted, I believe this theory is not to be (i.e., the specific criminal intent or political objective) removing from the applied rigorously where a new judicial doctrine is announced, in particular allegiance to said government or its laws the territory of the Republic of the one overruling a previous existing doctrine of long standing (here, 36 years) Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval or other armed and most specially not where the statute construed is criminal in nature and forces, or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, the new doctrine is more onerous for the accused than the pre-existing one of their powers or prerogatives." At the same time, Article 135 (entitled: (People v. Jabinal, 55 SCRA 607 [1974]; People v. Licera, 65 SCRA 270 "Penalty for Rebellion or Insurrection.") sets out a listing of acts or particular [1975]; Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 [1971]). Moreover, the measures which appear to fall under the rubric of rebellion or insurrection: non-retroactivity rule whether in respect of legislative acts or judicial "engaging in war against the forces of the Government, destroying property decisions has constitutional implications. The prevailing rule in the United or committing serious violence, exacting contributions or diverting public States is that a judicial decision that retroactively renders an act criminal or funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated." Are enhances the severity of the penalty prescribed for an offense, is vulnerable these modalities of rebellion generally? Or are they particular modes by to constitutional challenge based upon the rule against ex post facto laws which those "who promote [ ], maintain [ ] or head [ ] a rebellion or and the due process clause (Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 US 347,12 L. insurrection" commit rebellion, or particular modes of participation in a Ed. 2d 894 [1964]; Marks v. U.S., 43 US 188, 51 L. Ed. 2d 260 [1977]; rebellion by public officers or employees? Clearly, the scope of the legal Devine v. New Mexico Department of Corrections, 866 F. 2d 339 [1989]). concept of rebellion relates to the distinction between, on the one hand, the indispensable acts or ingredients of the crime of rebellion under the Revised It is urged by the Solicitor General that the non-retroactivity principle does Penal Code and, on the other hand, differing optional modes of seeking to not present any real problem for the reason that the Hernandez doctrine was carry out the political or social objective of the rebellion or insurrection. based upon Article 48, second clause, of the Revised Penal Code and not upon the first clause thereof, while it is precisely the first clause of Article 48 The difficulty that is at once raised by any effort to examine once more even that the Government here invokes. It is, however, open to serious doubt the above threshold questions is that the results of such re-examination may whether Hernandez can reasonably be so simply and sharply characterized. well be that acts which under the Hernandez doctrine are absorbed into And assuming the Hernandez could be so characterized, subsequent cases rebellion, may be characterized as separate or discrete offenses which, as a refer to the Hernandezdoctrine in terms which do not distinguish clearly matter of law, can either be prosecuted separately from rebellion or between the first clause and the second clause of Article 48 (e.g., People v. prosecuted under the provisions of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90 [1956]; People v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659 [1960]). which (both Clause 1 and Clause 2 thereof) clearly envisage the existence of Thus, it appears to me that the critical question would be whether a man of at least two (2) distinct offenses. To reach such a conclusion in the case at ordinary intelligence would have necessarily read or understood bar, would, as far as I can see, result in colliding with the fundamental non- the Hernandez doctrine as referring exclusively to Article 48, second clause. retroactivity principle (Article 4, Civil Code; Article 22, Revised Penal Code; Put in slightly different terms, the important question would be whether the both in relation to Article 8, Civil Code). new doctrine here proposed by the Government could fairly have been derived by a man of average intelligence (or counsel of average competence The Hernandez doctrine has served the purpose for which it was appealed in the law) from an examination of Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal by the Court in 1956 during the communist-inspired rebellion of the Huks. Code as interpreted by the Court in the Hernandez and subsequent cases. The changes in our society in the span of 34 years since then have far- To formulate the question ill these terms would almost be to compel a reaching effects on the all-embracing applicability of the doctrine considering negative answer, especially in view of the conclusions reached by the Court the emergence of alternative modes of seizing the powers of the duly and its several Members today. constituted Government not contemplated in Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code and their consequent effects on the lives of our people. Finally, there appears to be no question that the new doctrine that the The doctrine was good law then, but I believe that there is a certain aspect Government would have us discover for the first time since the promulgation of the Hernandez doctrine that needs clarification. of the Revised Penal Code in 1932, would be more onerous for the respondent accused than the simple application of the Hernandez doctrine With all due respect to the views of my brethren in the Court, I believe that that murders which have been committed on the occasion of and in the Court, in the instant case, should have further considered that distinction furtherance of the crime of rebellion must be deemed absorbed in the between acts or offenses which are indispensable in the commission of offense of simple rebellion. rebellion, on the one hand, and those acts or offenses that are merely necessary but not indispensable in the commission of rebellion, on the other. I agree therefore that the information in this case must be viewed as The majority of the Court is correct in adopting, albeit impliedly, the view in charging only the crime of simple rebellion. Hernandez case that when an offense perpetrated as a necessary means of committing another, which is an element of the latter, the resulting interlocking crimes should be considered as only one simple offense and must be deemed outside the operation of the complex crime provision (Article 48) of the Revised Penal Code. As in the case of Hernandez, the FERNAN, C.J., concurring and dissenting: Court, however, failed in the instant case to distinguish what is indispensable from what is merely necessary in the commission of an offense, resulting I am constrained to write this separate opinion on what seems to be a rigid thus in the rule that common crimes like murder, arson, robbery, etc. adherence to the 1956 ruling of the Court. The numerous challenges to the committed in the course or on the occasion of rebellion are absorbed or doctrine enunciated in the case of People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 included in the latter as elements thereof. (1956) should at once demonstrate the need to redefine the applicability of said doctrine so as to make it conformable with accepted and well-settled The relevance of the distinction is significant, more particularly, if applied to principles of criminal law and jurisprudence. contemporaneous events happening in our country today. Theoretically, a crime which is indispensable in the commission of another must necessarily To my mind, the Hernandez doctrine should not be interpreted as an all- be an element of the latter; but a crime that is merely necessary but not embracing authority for the rule that all common crimes committed on the indispensable in the commission of another is not an element of the latter, occasion, or in furtherance of, or in connection with, rebellion are absorbed and if and when actually committed, brings the interlocking crime within the by the latter. To that extent, I cannot go along with the view of the majority in operation of the complex crime provision (Art. 48) of the Revised Penal the instant case that 'Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to Code. With that distinction, common crimes committed against Government prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the forces and property in the course of rebellion are properly considered occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an indispensable overt acts of rebellion and are logically absorbed in it as virtual unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion" (p. 9, Decision). ingredients or elements thereof, but common crimes committed against the civilian population in the course or on the occasion of rebellion and in furtherance thereof, may be necessary but not indispensable in committing I concur with the majority opinion except as regards the dispositive portion the latter, and may, therefore, not be considered as elements of the said thereof which orders the remand of the case to the respondent judge for crime of rebellion. To illustrate, the deaths occurring during armed further proceedings to fix the amount of bail to be posted by the petitioner. confrontation or clashes between government forces and the rebels are absorbed in the rebellion, and would be those resulting from the bombing of I submit that the proceedings need not be remanded to the respondent judge military camps and installations, as these acts are indispensable in carrying for the purpose of fixing bail since we have construed the indictment herein out the rebellion. But deliberately shooting down an unarmed innocent as charging simple rebellion, an offense which is bailable. civilian to instill fear or create chaos among the people, although done in the Consequently,habeas corpus is the proper remedy available to petitioner as furtherance of the rebellion, should not be absorbed in the crime of rebellion an accused who had been charged with simple rebellion, a bailable offense as the felonious act is merely necessary, but not indispensable. In the latter but who had been denied his right to bail by the respondent judge in violation case, Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code should apply. of petitioner's constitutional right to bail. In view thereof, the responsibility of fixing the amount of bail and approval thereof when filed, devolves upon us, The occurrence of a coup d' etat in our country as a mode of seizing the if complete relief is to be accorded to petitioner in the instant proceedings. powers of the duly-constituted government by staging surprise attacks or occupying centers of powers, of which this Court should take judicial notice, It is indubitable that before conviction, admission to bail is a matter of right to has introduced a new dimension to the interpretation of the provisions on the defendant, accused before the Regional Trial Court of an offense less rebellion and insurrection in the Revised Penal Code. Generally, as a mode than capital (Section 13 Article III, Constitution and Section 3, Rule 114). of seizing the powers of the duly constituted government, it falls within the Petitioner is, before Us, on a petition for habeas corpus praying, among contemplation of rebellion under the Revised Penal Code, but, strictly others, for his provisional release on bail. Since the offense charged construed, a coup d'etat per se is a class by itself. The manner of its (construed as simple rebellion) admits of bail, it is incumbent upon us m the execution and the extent and magnitude of its effects on the lives of the exercise of our jurisdiction over the petition for habeas corpus (Section 5 (1), people distinguish a coup d'etat from the traditional definition and modes of Article VIII, Constitution; Section 2, Rule 102), to grant petitioner his right to commission attached by the Revised Penal Code to the crime of rebellion as bail and having admitted him to bail, to fix the amount thereof in such sums applied by the Court to the communist-inspired rebellion of the 1950's. A as the court deems reasonable. Thereafter, the rules require that "the coup d'etat may be executed successfully without its perpetrators resorting proceedings together with the bond" shall forthwith be certified to the to the commission of other serious crimes such as murder, arson, respondent trial court (Section 14, Rule 102). kidnapping, robbery, etc. because of the element of surprise and the precise timing of its execution. In extreme cases where murder, arson, robbery, and Accordingly, the cash bond in the amount of P 100,000.00 posted by other common crimes are committed on the occasion of a coup d' etat, the petitioner for his provisional release pursuant to our resolution dated March distinction referred to above on what is necessary and what is indispensable 6, 1990 should now be deemed and admitted as his bail bond for his in the commission of the coup d'etat should be painstakingly considered as provisional release in the case (simple rebellion) pending before the the Court should have done in the case of herein petitioners. respondent judge, without necessity of a remand for further proceedings, conditioned for his (petitioner's) appearance before the trial court to abide its I concur in the result insofar as the other issues are resolved by the Court order or judgment in the said case. but I take exception to the vote of the majority on the broad application of the Hernandez doctrine.

BIDIN, J., concurring and dissenting: SARMIENTO, J., concurring and dissenting: I agree that People v. Hernandez 1 should abide. More than three decades the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the after which it was penned, it has firmly settled in the tomes of our occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an jurisprudence as correct doctrine. unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion."

As Hernandez put it, rebellion means "engaging m war against the forces of I dissent, however, from the majority opinion insofar as it holds that the the government," 2 which implies "resort to arms, requisition of property and information in question, while charging the complex crime of rebellion with services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damage to murder and multiple frustrated murder, "is to be read as charging simple property, physical injuries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and rebellion." unhappiness that war leaves in its wake. ..." 3 whether committed in furtherance, of as a necessary means for the commission, or in the course, The present cases are to be distinguished from the Hernandez case in at of rebellion. To say that rebellion may be complexed with any other offense, least one (1) material respect. In theHernandez case, this Court was in this case murder, is to play into a contradiction in terms because exactly, confronted with an appealed case, i.e., Hernandez had been convicted by rebellion includes murder, among other possible crimes. the trial court of the complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson and robbery, and his plea to be released on bail before the Supreme Court, I also agree that the information may stand as an accusation for simple pending appeal, gave birth to the now celebrated Hernandez doctrine that rebellion. Since the acts complained of as constituting rebellion have been the crime of rebellion complexed with murder, arson and robbery does not embodied in the information, mention therein of murder as a complexing exist. In the present cases, on the other hand, the Court is confronted with offense is a surplusage, because in any case, the crime of rebellion is left an original case, i.e., where an information has been recently filed in the trial fully described. 4 court and the petitioners have not even pleaded thereto.

At any rate, the government need only amend the information by a clerical Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in the Hernandez case, was "ground- correction, since an amendment will not alter its substance. breaking" on the issue of whether rebellion can be complexed with murder, arson, robbery, etc. In the present cases, on the other hand, the prosecution I dissent, however, insofar as the majority orders the remand of the matter of and the lower court, not only had the Hernandez doctrine (as case law), but bail to the lower court. I take it that when we, in our Resolution of March 6, Executive Order No. 187 of President Corazon C. Aquino dated 5 June 1987 1990, granted the petitioner "provisional liberty" upon the filing of a bond of (as statutory law) to bind them to the legal proposition that the crime of P100,000.00, we granted him bail. The fact that we gave him "provisional rebellion complexed with murder, and multiple frustrated murder does not liberty" is in my view, of no moment, because bail means provisional liberty. exist. It will serve no useful purpose to have the trial court hear the incident again when we ourselves have been satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to And yet, notwithstanding these unmistakable and controlling beacon lights- temporary freedom. absent when this Court laid down theHernandez doctrine-the prosecution has insisted in filing, and the lower court has persisted in hearing, an information charging the petitioners with rebellion complexed with murder an multiple frustrated murder. That information is clearly a nullity and plainly PADILLA, J., dissenting: void ab initio. Its head should not be allowed to surface. As a nullity in substantive law, it charges nothing; it has given rise to nothing. The warrants of arrest issued pursuant thereto are as null and void as the information on I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it holds that the ruling in People which they are anchored. And, since the entire question of the information's vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 "remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit validity is before the Court in these habeas corpus cases, I venture to say 6 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, pp. 305-359. that the information is fatally defective,even under procedural law, because it charges more than one (1) offense (Sec. 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court). 7 Originally a petition for certiorari and prohibition which the Court, upon motion of the petitioners, resolved to treat I submit then that it is not for this Court to energize a dead and, at best, as a petition for habeas corpus; Rollo, G.R. No. 92164, pp. fatally decrepit information by labelling or "baptizing" it differently from what it 128-129. announces itself to be. The prosecution must file an entirely new and properinformation, for this entire exercise to merit the serious consideration 8 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, pp. 407-411. of the courts. 9 Fernan, C.J., and Narvasa, Cortes and Grino-Aquino, ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the petitions, QUASH the warrants of JJ. arrest, and ORDER the information for rebellion complexed with murder and multiple frustrated murder in Criminal Case Nos. 90-10941, RTC of Quezon 10 Fernan, C.J. and Narvasa, J. City, DISMISSED.

10-A Two Members a on leave. Consequently, the petitioners should be ordered permanently released and their bails cancelled. 11 Executive Order No. 187 issued June 5, 1987.

Paras, J., concurs. 12 People vs. Hernandez, supra at 541-543.

13 Id., at 551.

Footnotes 14 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, pp. 78-79 and 73-76.

1 99 Phil. 515 (1956). 14 Supra, footnote 4.

2 People vs. Lava, 28 SCRA 72 (1956); People vs. 15 Soliven vs. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 394. Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90 (1956); People vs. Romagosa, 103 Phil. 20 (1958); and People vs. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659 (1960). 17 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, pp. 46-47.

3 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, pp. 32-34. 18 Sec. 2, Rule 117, Rules of Court.

4 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, pp. 34 et seq. 19 Ocampo vs. Bernabe, 77 Phil. 55.

5 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, p. 26. 20 Rollo, G.R. No. 92164, pp. 124-125. Melencio-Herrera, J., Opinion

1 "ART. 142-A-Cases where other offenses are committed.-When by reason or on the occasion of any of the crimes penalized in this Chapter, acts which constitute offenses upon which graver penalties are imposed by law are committed, the penalty for the most serious offense in its maximum period shall be imposed upon the offender."

Sarmiento, J., Concurring

1 99 Phil. 515 (1956).

2 Supra, 520.

3 Supra, 521.

4 US v. Santiago, 41 Phil. 793 (1917). fell down and died. Manglallan then placed on the dead body of Ragual a writing and drawing made by their association warning the people and the PC of their activities. 1 Thereafter, the group returned and reported to Ka Daniel that Ragual was already dead. Dr. Leonides Flores, the Municipal Republic of the Philippines Health Officer of Sta. Ana, Cagayan conducted a post-mortem examination SUPREME COURT on the remains of Apolonio Ragual at about 4:00 P.M. of the same day, after Manila which he issued an autopsy report 2 showing multiple gunshot wounds suffered by the deceased and finding the cause of death to be severe FIRST DIVISION hemorrhage, shock secondary to multiple gunshot wounds.

G.R. No. L-38538 April 15, 1988 An information was filed by the provincial fiscal in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan charging Andres Manglallan, Virgilio Ballesteros, and Cesar PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Alvarez of the crime of murder. However, upon arraignment on accused vs. Manglallan and Ballesteros were present as Alvares was at large. Upon ANDRES MANGLALLAN y ARDAN alias "Ka Elmer," VIRGILIO motion of the fiscal, Ballesteros was discharged from the information as a BALLESTEROS y ANDRADA alias 'Ka Felix' and CESAR ALVAREZ alias government witness. The trial on the merits proceeded as against "Ka Karte," accused, ANDRES MANGLALLAN y ARDAN alias "Ka Manglallan after which a decision was rendered on March 19, 1974, the Elmer,"defendant-appellant. dispositive part of which reads as follows:

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. WEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accused Andres Manglallan guilty beyond Ruben E. Agpalo for appellant. reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance

offsetting each other, and hereby sentences him to suffer reclusion perpetua to indemnify the heirs of the victim in GANCAYCO, J.: the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.00) without, however, serving subsidiary On September 3, 1972 in Barrio Punti East, Sta. Ana, Cagayan, Ka Daniel imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs. who appears to be the leader of the New People's Army (NPA) in the area directed Andres Manglallan, Cesar Alvarez, Domingo Ramos, and Virgilio The accused being a detention prisoner and having signed Ballesteros, members of the NPA to go to Barrio Punti and kill one Apolonio the agreement required of detention prisoners by Article Ragual who was suspected by Ka Daniel to be a Philippine Constabulary 29 of the Revised Penal Code, As amended by Republic (PC) informer. Said four went to the barrio of Ragual, Manglallan carrying a Act No. 6127, is credited with the whole period of his Browning shotgun, Ramos a Thompson, Alvarez a carbine and Ballesteros, preventive imprisonment in the service of his sentence. a homemade gun called Bulldog, They arrived at Punti at 9:00 A.M. and they saw Ragual at the river bank giving his carabao a bath. Ramos went to him Not satisfied therewith, said accused interposed this appeal alleging that the and after a while shot him with his gun. Manglallan also shot him with his lower court committed the following assigned errors: Browning followed with another shot by Alvarez, as a result of which Ragual First Assignment of Error After the briefs of the parties were filed, the defendant-appellant filed a motion to withdraw the appeal on October 25, 1977 as he had lost interest in THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT the same and is convinced that the decision appealed from is in accordance THE CRIME COMMITTED IS NOT MURDER BUT A with law and the evidence. POLITICAL OFFENSE WHICH GIVES RISE TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT FALLS UNDER THE The Solicitor General was required to comment on this motion and he ANTI-SUBVERSION ACT OR UNDER ARTICLES 134 recommended the denial of the motion to withdraw the appeal in view of the AND 135 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. recommendation in the People's brief that accused-appellant should be convicted of the lesser offense of simple rebellion which is more favorable to Second Assignment of Error the appellant. The counsel de oficio for the appellant, in reply to the said comment stated that he agrees with the Id comment of the Solicitor General THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT and asked that the appeal be decided at the earliest possible time. Appellant DEFENDANT-APPELLANT COULD BE HELD LIABLE filed a separate manifestation and motion stating his interest to pursue the FOR ONLY MERE MEMBERSHIP IN THE NEW appeal. The motion was granted by the Court on January 25, 1982. PEOPLE'S ARMY (NPA) WHICH IS PENALIZED BY ARRESTO MAYOR AND NOT FOR A GRAVER CRIME Under the first assigned error, the appellant contends that the crime he PENALIZED BY PRISION MAYOR TO DEATH. committed is not murder but a political offense which gives rise to the DEFENDANT-APPELLANT HAVING BEEN DENIED OF question as to whether the same falls under the Anti-Subversion Act or under HIS STATUTORY RIGHT AND THE TWO-WITNESS Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code. The appellant admits that REQUIREMENT OF THE ANTI- SUBVERSION ACT NOT he was a member of the NPA then operating in the Cagayan area with Ka HAVING BEEN COMPLIED WITH. Daniel as their leader. He asserts that the NPA is the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines. 3 There is no question likewise that the Third Assignment of Error killing of Apolonio Ragual by the appellant and his companions who were also members of the NPA upon orders of Ka Daniel was politically motivated. They suspected Ragual as an informer for the PC. In fact, after he was THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL killed, they left a letter and a drawing on the body of Ragual as a warning to CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF BALLESTEROS others not to follow his example. 4 AND IN NOT HOLDING, ASSUMMING REBELLION AS THE APPLICABLE OF TENSE. THAT DEFENDANT- 5 APPELLANT COULD, IF AT ALL, BE HELD LIABLE In the case of People vs. Agarin, which was a prosecution for murder, like MERELY AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE CRIME OF the present case, where the accused Huk member with his companions REBELLION. killed the victim because he was a PC informer, this Court held that the crime committed is simple rebellion and not murder, as follows:

Fourth Assignment of Error The offense perpetrated by appellant is murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength. Considering, however, the THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING fact that the killing was committed as a means to or in the VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AS A MITIGATING furtherance of the subversive ends of the Huk balahaps CIRCUMSTANCE. (HUKS) because the Id appellant and his companions, Commander Manaing and Commander Vida suspected (b) That the offender surrendered himself to a person in the deceased to have acted as a spy and had informed authority or the latter's agent; and the BOT and Government agencies regarding the presence of the Huks in that region, we find the Id (c) The surrendered was voluntary. 7 Federico Agarin alias Commander "Smith" guilty of the crime of simple rebellion only (People vs. Hernandez, et All the above elements are present in the case. The appellant should thus be al., 99 Phil. 515; 52 Off. Gaz. [12] 5506; Secs. 4 and 5, credited this mitigating circumstance. Rule 116; People vs. Melecio Aquino, et al., 108 Phil 814; 57 Off. Gaz [51] 91 80)'" [People vs. Agarin, 109 Phil. 430, WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified by convicting 436]" the accused-appellant of the crime of rebellion punishable under Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code and not of murder. Considering that the The Court, therefore, sustains the contention of the appellant that the crime commission of the offense was attended by the mitigating circumstance of he committed is not murder but the crime of rebellion punishable under voluntary surrendered, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code. appellant is hereby imposed an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Two (2) Years and Four (4) Months of prision correccional as minimum to Six The Court does not agree, however, with the allegation of the appellant that (6) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayoras maximum to pay a fine of he could be held liable only for being a member in the NPA punishable under P10,000.00 and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Apolonio Ragual in the Anti-Subversion Act. More than being a member of the NPA, which is a the amount of P30,000.00. As the accused-appellant is a detention prisoner subversive organization, the appellant took up arms against the government in the New Bilibid Prisons and he appears to have been under detention for by committing murder, as in this case, which thus holds him liable for the a period beyond the period of the penalty herein-above imposed on him, he graver offense of rebellion. is hereby ordered Released immediately from detention unless he is being held for some other charges. This Decision is immediately executory. Nor can the argument of the appellant that he should be held liable as an accomplice be sustained. The records show without doubt that together with SO ORDERED. his companions, they killed the victim, the appellant being among those who shot him and thereafter they placed the letter and drawing on top of the body Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Cruz, and Griño Aquino, JJ., concur. of the deceased as a warning against others. His participation in the commission of the offense is obviously that of a principal and not that of a mere accomplice.

Footnotes Under the fourth assigned error, the appellant claims that he should be credited the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,. Evidence has been adduced by the appellant that after several months of hiding after the 1 Exhibits A & B. killing, he voluntarily surrendered to Lt. Lee Barnes. 6 2 Exhibit C. The elements of this mitigating circumstance. 3 Presidential Proclamation No. 1081 [1972]; People vs. (a) The offender had not actually been arrested; Ferrer, 38 SCRA 382, 405. 4 TSN, February 18, 1974, p. 6; February 20, 1974, pp. 5- MALCOLM, J.: 6; Exhibits A & B. No more serious violation of the criminal law of these Island and nor more 5 People vs. Agarin, 109 Phil. 430; see also People vs. wanton defiance of the law by the very men whose sworn duty it was to enforce the law, has ever been brought before this court than is now Aquino and Cortes, 108 Phil. 814. presented for consideration in this case. To avenge a fancied wrong, member of the Philippine Constabulary murdered six member of the police 6 TSN., February 20, 1974. force of the City of Manila, among them the respected Captain William E. Wichman, assistant chief of police, and two private citizens, and gravely wounded three other civilians. 7 People vs. Hanasan, 29 SCRA 534.

To the task of reviewing the facts, of preparing an opinion on the pertinent issues, and of rendering judgement, if no reversible error be found, regarding the appropriate penalty, we no propose to address ourselves.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS

On December 13, 1920, policemen of the city of Manila arrested a woman who was a member of the household of a Constabulary soldier stationed at the Santa Lucia Barracks in this city. The arrest of the woman was considered by some of the Constabulary soldiers at Santa Lucia Barracks as an outrage committed by the policemen, and it instantly gave rise to friction between members of the Manila police department and members of the Philippine Constabulary.

The next day, December 14, at about sunset, a policeman named Artemio Mojica, posted on Calle Real, in the District of Intramuros, city of Manila, had an encounter with various Constabulary soldiers which resulted in the Republic of the Philippines shooting of private Macasinag of the Constabulary. Private Macasinag was SUPREME COURT seriously, and as afterwards appeared, mortally wounded. Manila The encounter between policeman Mojica and other companions of the EN BANC Manila force and private Macasinag and other companions of the Constabulary, with its grave consequences for the Constabulary soldier, G.R. No. 1755 March 4, 1922 engendered a deep feeling of resentment on the part of the soldiers at Santa Lucia Barracks. This resentment was soon converted into a desire for revenge against the police force of the city of Manila. The officers of the THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, Constabulary appear to have been aware of the state of excitement among vs. the soldiers at Santa Lucia Barracks because almost immediately after the GRACIANO L. CABRERA, ET AL., defendants-appellants. shooting of private Macasinag, Captain Page, the commanding officer of the barracks, increased the number of guards, and confined all the soldiers in Vicente Sotto for appellants. the barracks. Acting Attorney-General Tuason for appelle. During the afternoon of the next day, December 15, 1920, a rumor spread About the same time, a police patrol came from the Meisic police station. among the soldiers in San Lucia Barracks to the effect that policeman Mojica When it was on Calle Real near Cabildo, in Intramuros, it was fired upon by was allowed to continue on duty on the streets of Intramuros and that private Constabulary soldiers who had stationed themselves in the courtyard of the Macasinag had died as a consequence of the shot he received the night San Agustin Church. This attack resulted in the death of patrolmen Trogue before. This rumor contributed in no small degree in precipitating a and Sixon. movement for reprisal by the Constabulary soldiers against the policeman. Another platoon of the Constabulary, between thirty and forty in number, At about 7 o'clock in the evening of the same day, December 15, 1920, had, in the meantime, arranged themselves in a firing line on the Sunken corporal Ingles of the Fourth Company approached private Nicolas Torio Gardens on the east side of Calle General Luna opposite the Aquarium. who was then the man in charge of quarters, and asked him to let then the From this advantageous position the Constabulary fired upon the motorcycle man in charge of quarters of the Fourth Company. Private Torio was easily occupied by sergeant Armada and given by policeman Policarpio who with persuaded to permit private Francisco Garcia of the Second Company to companions were passing along Calle General Luna in front of the Aquarium saw out the window bars of the quarters in his charge, and to allow soldiers going in the direction of Calle Real, Intramuros. As a result of the shooting, to escape through the window with rifles and ammunition under the the driver of the motorcycle, policeman Policarpio, was mortally wounded. command of their sergeants and corporals. When outside of the quarters, This same platoon of Constabulary soldiers fired several volleys these soldiers divided into groups for attack upon the city police force. indiscriminately into the Luneta police station, and the office of the secret service of the city of Manila across Calles General Luna and Padre Burgos, On platoon of Constabulary soldiers apparently numbering about ten or but fortunately no one was injured. twelve, on Calle Real, Intramuros, fired in the direction of the intersection of Calles Real and Cabildo where an American policeman named Driskill was General Rafael Crame, Chief of the Constabulary, and Captain Page, stationed, and was talking with a friend named Jacumin, a field clerk in the commanding officer of the Santa Lucia Barracks, rounded up some of the United States Army. These two men were shot and died soon afterwards. To soldiers one after another returned to the Barracks where they were the credit of policeman Driskill be it said, that although a dying conditions disarmed. No list of the names of these soldiers was, however, made. and in the face of overwhelming odds, he valiantly returned the fire with his revolver. Jacumin was killed notwithstanding that in response to the In the morning of the next day, December 16, 1920, Colonel Lucien R. command of the Constabulary, "Hands up!." he elevated both arms. Sweet of the Constabulary in compliance with order from General Crame, and assisted by other Constabulary officers and later by the fiscals of the city A street car happened to stop at this time at the corner of Calles Real and of Manila, commenced an investigation of the events of the night before. He Cabildo. Without considering that the passengers in the car were innocent first ordered that all the soldiers in Santa Lucia Barracks, at that time passersby, the Constabulary squad fired a volley into the car, killing instantly numbering some one hundred and eighty, be assembled on the parade the passenger named Victor Torres and gravely wounding three other civilian ground, and when this was done, the soldiers were separated into their passengers, Gregorio Cailles, Vicente Antonio, and Mariano Cortes. Father respective companies. Then Colonel Sweet, speaking English, with Jose Tahon, a priest of the Cathedral of Manila, proved himself a hero on assistance of Captain Silvino Gallardo, who interpreted his remarks into this occasion for, against the command of the Constabulary, he persisted in Tagalog, made two brief statements. The first was, in effect: "Those of you persuading them to cease firing and advanced in order the he might who for one reason or another left the Barracks last night, may step administer spiritual aid to who had been wounded. forward." Responding to this order, nearly one hundred moved to the front. Thereupon, Colonel Sweet said to these: "For the good of the body to which The firing on Calle Real did not end at that time. Some minutes later, you belong, of your companions, and of yourselves, those who participated Captain William E. Wichman, assistant chief of police of the city of Manila, in the riot last night may take another step forward." Seventy-three soldiers riding in a motorcycle driven by policeman Saplala, arrived at the corner of then advance a step. The names of four other who took part but who were Calles Real and Magallanes in Intramuros, and a volley of shots by not present were taken down by Captain Gallardo. Constabulary soldiers resulted in the instantaneous death of Captain Wichman and the death shortly afterwards of patrolman Saplala. What occurred on the occasion above described can best be told in the 2. To what company of the Philippine Constabulary do you belong? exact language of Colonel Sweet: — First company, General Service of the Constabulary.

After conferring or speaking among themselves, for probably two 3. Where were you garrisoned yesterday afternoon, December 15, minutes, I inferred or observed from their attitude that they were 1920? — In the Santa Lucia Barracks. waiting for a call to order. Accordingly, I called them to order and some eight-five took one step forward. After that I called them to 4. Did you leave the barracks at about 7 o'clock yesterday evening? attention; I advised them that for the good of themselves and their — Yes, sir. companions who did not participate in the shooting of the night before, for the good of the body and also of all parties interested, those who took part in the shooting of the night before should take 5. For what reason, and where did you go? — We went in search of another step forward. I spoke so rapidly that it is impossible for me the policemen and secret service men of Manila. It has been to repeat exactly what I told them that morning. I spoke them that sometime now since we have been having standing grudge against morning approving the decision of those of them who took one step the police of Manila. The wife of one of our comrades was first forward. I believe that some seventy-two (72) took one step forward arrested by the policemen and then abused by the same; and not as admitting that they took part in the shooting on the night before. I content with having abused her, they gave this woman to an then asked if they brought with the, ammunition or arms not American; after this incident, they arrested two soldiers of the belonging to them. They answered viva voce that each one of them Constabulary, falsely accusing them of keeping women of bad carried their own arms and ammunition. I asked them if there was reputation; after this incident, came the shooting of Macasinag, a any one who was with them the night before but who was not shooting not justified, because we have come to know that present that morning; whereupon, one or two soldiers mentioned Macasinag did nothing and the policemen could have arrested him the names of some who were not then present. That is how the if they desired. Moreover, the rumor spread among us that the total number of those who left and who were not in the Barracks police department of Manila had given orders to the policemen to reached seventy-seven (77). fire upon any constabulary soldier they found in the streets, and we believe that the rumor was not without foundation since we noticed that after the Macasinag affair, the policemen of Manila, contrary to The statements of the seventy-seven soldiers were taken in writing during the usual practice, were armed with carbines or shot-guns. For this the afternoon of the same day, December 16. The questionnaire prepared by reason we believed that if we did not put an end to these abuses of the fiscal of the City of Manila was the same for each soldier, and was filled the policemen and secret service men, they would continue out either in English or Spanish. The questions and answers were, however, abusing the Constabulary. And as an act of vengeance we did what when requested by the soldiers, translated into their dialects Each statement we had done last night. was signed by the soldier making it in the presence of either two or three witnesses. 6. How did you come to join your companions who rioted last night? — I saw that almost all the soldiers were jumping through the Although the answers to the questions contained in these statements vary in window and I was to be left along in the barracks and so I followed. phraseology, in substance they are the same. One of them, the first in numerical order, that of sergeant Graciano L. Cabrera, taken in Spanish and interpreted into Tagalog, may be selected as typical of the rest, and is here 7. Who asked you to join it? — Nobody. literally transcribed: 8. Do you know private Crispin Macasinag, the one who was shot 1. Give your name, age, status, occupation, and residence. — by the Manila police the night before last on Calle Real? — Yes, sir, Graciano L. Cabrera, 24 years old, single, sergeant of the first I know him because he was our comrade. company of the General Service, of the Constabulary, residing in Santa Lucia Barracks. 9. Were you offended at the aggression made on the person of said The defendants were charged in one information filed in the Court of First soldier? — Indeed, yes, not only was I offended, but my Instance of the city of Manila with the crime of sedition, and in another companions also were. information filed in the same court, with the crimes of murder and serious physical injuries. The two cases were tried separately before different judges 10. State how many shots you fired, if any, during the riot last night. of first instance. In the sedition case, which came on for trial first, all of the — I cannot tell precisely the number of shots I fired because I was accused, with the exception of eight, namely, Francisco Ingles, Juan somewhat obfuscated; all I can assure you is that I fired more than Noromor, P. E. Vallado, Dionisio Verdadero, Francisco Garcia, Benigno once. Tagavilla, Felix Lamsing and Paciano Caña pleaded guilty, but later, after the first witness for the prosecution had testified, the accused who had pleaded guilty were permitted, with the consent of the court, to substitute therefor the 11. Do you know if you hit any policemen or any other person? — If plea of not guilty. In the murder case, all entered a plea of not guilty. On so, state whether the victim was a policemen or any civilian. petition of the defense, two assessors were chosen to sit with the judge.

12. State the streets of the city where you fired shots. — I cannot The prosecution presented, in the making of its case, the seventy-seven give an exact account of the streets where I fired my gun. I had full confession of the defendants introduced in evidence as Exhibits C to C-76, possession of my faculties until I reached Calle Victoria; inclusive, and all were identified by the respective constabulary officers, afterwards , I became aware that I was bathed with perspiration interpreters, and typists who intervened in taking them. The prosecution only upon reaching the barracks. further relied on oral testimony, including eyewitness to the homicides.

13. What arms were you carrying and how much ammunition or The attorneys for the accused presented three defenses. The first defense how many cartridges did you use? — I carried a carbine; I cannot was that of jeopardy; the second was based on the contention that the tell precisely the number of cartridges I used; however, I placed in written statements Exhibits C to C-076 were not freely and voluntarily made my pocket the twenty cartridges belonging to me and I must have by the defendants; and the third defense, in favor of the defendants Vicente lost some on the way. Casimiro, Juan Noromor, Salvador Gregorio, Paciano Caña, Juan Abarquez, Mariano Garcia, Felix Liron, Bonifacio Eugenio, Patricio Bello, Baldomero 14. How did you manage to leave the barracks? — By the, window Rodriguez, Roberto Palabay, Roque Ebol, Ildefonso de la Cruz, Cipriano of the quarters of the Fourth Company, through the grating which I Lizardo, Francisco Garcia, Genaro Elayda, Hilario Hibalar, Primitivo E. found cut off. Vallado, Maximo Perlas, and Benigno Tagavilla, was to the effect that they not take part in the riot. The court overruled the special defenses and found 15. Are you above statements made by you, voluntarily freely, and that the guilt of the accused had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. spontaneously given? — Yes, sir. Thereupon, the court rendered judgement finding all of the defendants guilty of the crimes charged in the information and sentenced the three sergeants Graciano L Cabrera, Pascual Magno, And Bonifacio Eugenio, and the eight 16. Do you swear to said statements although no promise of corporals, E. E. Agbulos, Francisco Ingles, Clemente Manigdeg, Hilario immunity is made to you? — Yes, sir; I confirm them, being true. Hibalar, Juan Abarques, Pecro V. Mateo, Juan Regalado and Genaro Elayda, to cadena perpetua (life imprisonment), and each of the remaining (Sgd.) G. L. CABRERA defendants to seventeen years, four months and one day of cadena temporal, all with the accessory penalties provided by the Penal Code and all to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of each deceased in the sum of Witnesses: P500, and to pay a proportional part of the costs.

(Sgd.) S. GALLARDO For the statement of the cases and the facts which has just been made, we LAURO C. MARQUEZ. are indebted in large measure to the conspicuously fair and thoughtful decisions of the Hon. Carlos Imperial who presided in the murder case, and of the Hon. George R. Harvey who presided in the sedition case. As Appellants claim that fraud and decit marked the preparation of the seventy- stipulated by the Attorney-General and counsel for the defendants, the proof seven confession. It is alleged that some of the defendants signed the is substantially the same in both cases. confessions under the impression that those who had taken part in the affray would be transferred to Mindanao, and that although they did not in fact so In all materials respects, we agree with the findings of fact as made by the participate, affirmed that they did because of a desire to leave Manila; that trial court in this case. The rule is again applied that the Supreme Court will others stepped forward "for the good of the service"; while still other simply not interfere with the judgement of the trial court in passing upon the didn't understand what they were doing, for the remarks of Colonel Sweet credibility of the opposing witnesses, unless there appears in the record were made in English and only translated into Tagalog, and their some fact or circumstances of weight and influence which as been declarations were sometimes taken in a language which was unintelligible to overlooked or significance of which has been, interpreted. (U. S. vs. them. Counsel evidence of Exhibits C to C-76, and the Attorney-General is Ambrosio and Falsario [1910], 17 Phil., 295; U. S. Remegio [1918], 37 Phil., wrong in stating otherwise. 599.) In the record of the case at bar, no such fact or circumstance appears. Section 4 of Act No. 619 entitled "An Act to promote good order and OPINION discipline in the Philippines Constabulary" and reading: "No confession of any person charged with crime shall be received as evidence against him by any court of justice unless it be first shown to the satisfaction of the court An assignment of six errors is made by the counsel for the defendants and that it was freely and voluntarily made and not the result of violence, appellants. Two of the assignments of error merit little or no consideration. intimidation, threat, menace, or of promises or offers of reward or leniency," Assignments of error 5 and 6 (finding their counterpart in assignment of error was repealed by the first Administrative Code. But the same rule of No. 2 in the sedition case), in which it is attempted to establish that Vicente jurisprudence continues without the law. As has been repeatedly announced Casimiro, Juan Noromor, Salvador Gregorio, Paciano Caña, Juan Abarquez, by this and other courts, "the true test of admissibility is that the confession Mariano Garcia, Felix Liron, Bonifacio Eugenio, Patricio Bello, Baldomero is made freely, voluntarily, and without compulsion or inducement of any Rodriguez, Roberto Palabay, Roque Ebol, Ildefonso dela Cruz, Cipriano sort." If the confession is freely and voluntarily made, it constitutes one of the Lizardo, Primitivo E. Vallado, Maximo Perlas and Benigno Tagavilla did not most effectual proofs in the law against the party making it. (Wilson vs. U. S. leave the Santa Lucia Barracks on the night of the tragedy, is predicated on [1895], 162 U. S., 613.) The burden of proof that the confession was not the special defense raised in the lower court for these defendants and which voluntarily made or was obtained by undue pressure is on the accused. (U. was found untenable by the trial court. Any further discussion of this question S. vs. Zara [1921], 42 Phil., 308.) falls more appropriately under our consideration of assignment of error No. 3, relating to the conspiracy between the accused. What actually occurred when the confessions were prepared is clearly explained in the record. The source of the rumor that the defendants would Assignment error No. 4 relating to the judge deciding the case without taking be transferred to Mindanao if they signed the confessions, is not established. into consideration the transcript of the stenographic notes in the case for On the contrary it is established that before the declarations were taken, sedition does not constitute reversible error. Counsel for the defendants is Lieutenant Gatuslao in response to a query had shown the improbability of the first to admit by stipulation that the facts in the two case are substantially such a transfer. With Military where the dialect is Tagalog, all of the the same. defendants must have understood the substantial part of Colonel Sweet's remarks. What is more important, there could be no misunderstanding as to The three pertinent issues in this case relate to: (1) The admission of the contents of the confessions as written down. In open court, sixty-nine of Exhibits C to C-76 of the prosecution (assignment error No. 2, murder case; the defendants reiterated their guilt. The officers who assisted in the assignment of error No. 1, sedition case); (2) the conspiracy between the investigation were of the same service as the defendants and would accused (assignment of error No. 3, murder case; assignment of error No. 4, naturally not be inclined to prejudice the rights of their own men. sedition case); and (3) the defense of double jeopardy (assignment of error No. 1, murder case). I must also be remembered that each and every one of the defendants was a member of the Insular police force. Because of the very nature of their 1. THE ADMISSION OF EXHIBITS C TO C-76 duties and because of their practical experience, these Constabulary soldiers must have been aware of the penalties meted out for criminal that object. (5 R. C. L., 1088.) Applied to the facts before is, it is offenses. Every man on such a momentous occasion would be more careful incontestable that all of the defendants were imbued with the same purpose, of his actions than ordinarily and whatever of credulity there is in him, would which was to avenge themselves on the police force of the city of Manila. A for the moment be laid aside. Over and above all desire for a more exciting common feeling of resentment animated all. A common plan evolved from life, over and above the so-called espiritu de corps, is the instinct of self- their military training was followed. preservation which could not but be fully aroused by such stirring incidents too recent to be forgotten as had occurred in this case, and which would The effort to lead the court into the realm of psychology and metaphysics is counsel prudence rather than rashness; secretiveness rather than garrulity. unavailing in the face of actualities. The existence of a joint assent may be reasonably inferred from the facts proved. Not alone are the men who fired These confessions contain the statements that they were made freely and the fatal shots responsible, not alone are the men who admit firing their voluntarily without any promise of immunity. That such was the case was carbines responsible, but all, having united to further a common design of corroborated by the attesting witnesses whose credibility has not been hate and vengeance, are responsible for the legal consequences therefor. successfully impeached. We rule that the trial court did not err in declaring that there was a We rule the trial court did not err in admitting Exhibits C to C-76 of the conspiracy between the accused. prosecution. 3. THE DEFENSE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY 2. THE CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE ACCUSED The constitutional inhibition in the Philippine Bill of Rights is "that no person The contention of the appellants is that evidence is lacking of any supposed for same offense shall twice be put in jeopardy of punishment.," Somewhat connivance between the accused. Counsel emphasizes that in answer to the in application thereof, the code of Criminal Procedure provides that "When a question in the confession, "Who asked you to join in the riot?," each of the defendant shall have been convicted or acquitted or once placed in jeopardy accused answered, "Nobody." The argument is then advanced that the upon an information or complaint, the conviction, acquittal or jeopardy shall appellants cannot be held criminally responsible because of the so-called be a bar to another information or indictment for the offense charged, or for psychology of crowds theory. In other words, it is claimed that at the time of an attempt to commit the same, or for a frustration thereof, or for any offense the commission of the crime the accused were mere automatons obeying necessarily therein included of which he might been convicted under such the insistent call of their failure of evidence and the positive evidence, complaint or information." (Sec. 26.) The guaranty in Philippine organic and counsel would deduce the absence of conspiracy between the accused. statutory law relating to double jeopardy has received controlling interpretation both by the Supreme Court of the Philippines and the Supreme It is a primary rule that if two or more persons combine to perform a criminal Court of the United States. act, each is responsible for all the acts of the others done in furtherance of the common design; and "the results is the same if the act is divided into The prohibition is against a second jeopardy for the same offense. To entitle parts and each person proceeds with his part unaided." (U. S. vs. Maza a defendant to plead successfully former jeopardy, the offense charge in the [1905], 5 Phil., 346; U. S. vs. Remigio [1918], 37 Phil., 599; decision of the two prosecutions must be the same in law and in fact. The test is not supreme court of Spain of September 29, 1883; People vs. Mather [1830], 4 whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act, but whether Wendell, 299.) he has been put in jeopardy for the same offense. The same acts may violate two or more provisions of the criminal law. When they do, a Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, prosecution under one will not bar a prosecution under another. and circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the In corroboration and in exemplification of the rules pertaining to the subject same object, one performing one part and another part of the same, so as to of double jeopardy, we have only to turn to leading decisions of the United complete it, with a view to the attainment of that same object, one will be States Supreme Court on Philippine appeals. In Flemister vs. United States justified in the conclusion that they were engaged in a conspiracy to effect ([1907], 207 U. S., 372),1 it was held that treating as two different offenses assaults on two different individuals does not place the accused twice in crime against a crime directed against the existence of the State, the jeopardy for the same offense, even if these assaults occurred very near authority of the government, and the general public tranquillity; murder is a each other, in one continuing attempt to defy the law. In Garcia crime directed against the lives of individuals. (U. S. vs. Abad [1902], 1 Phil., Gavieres vs. United States ([1911], 220 U. S. 338),2 it was held that the 437.) Sedition in its more general sense is the raising of commotions or offenses of behaving an indecent manner in a public place, open of insulting disturbances in the state' murder at common law is where a person of sound a public officer by deed or word in his presence, contrary to the Penal Code, mind and discretion unlawfully kills any human being, in the peace of the are not identical, so that a conviction of the first will bar a prosecution for the sovereign, with malice aforethought, express or implied. other, although the acts and words of the accused set forth in both charges are the same. The court said that "It is true that the acts and words of the The offenses charged in the two informations for sedition and murder are accused set forth in both charges are the same; but in the second case it perfectly distinct in point of law however nearly they may be connected in was charged, as was essential to conviction, that the misbehavior in deed point of act. Not alone are the offense eo nomine different, but the and words was addressed to a public official In this view we are of opinion allegations in the body of the informations are different. The gist of the that while the transaction charged is the same in each case, the offenses are information for sedition is the public and tumultuous uprising of the different." In Diaz vs. United States ([1912], 223 E. S., 442), it was held that constabulary in order to attain by force and outside of legal methods the the prosecution for homicide of a person previously convicted of an assault object of inflicting an act of hate and revenge upon the persons of the police and battery from which the death afterwards ensued does not place the force of the city of Manila by firing at them in several places in the city of accused twice in jeopardy for the same offense. The court said that "The Manila; the gist of the information in the murder case is that the Instance and the assault and a battery for which he was tried before the Constabulary, conspiring together, illegally and criminally killed eight persons justice of the peace, although identical in some of their elements, were and gravely wounded three others. The crimes of murder and serious distinct offenses both in law and in fact. The death of the injured person was physical injuries were not necessarily included in the information for sedition; the principal element of the homicide, but was no part of the assault and and the defendants could not have been convicted of these crimes under the battery." first information.

Appellants rely principally on the decision of this Court in the case of United The evidence required to convict under the first information would not have States vs. Gustillo ([1911], 19 Phil., 208). It was there only held that the been sufficient to convict under the second. Proof of an additional and possession of a shotgun and a revolver by the same person at the same essential fact; namely, the death of one or more human beings, was time and the in the same place, is but one act of possession, one violation of necessary to constitute the offense charged in the second information. The the law, and that a conviction and punishment for the possession of the one defendants may have been tried for the same act or acts; they have not arm is a bar to the prosecution for the possession of the other. (Compare been put in jeopardy for the same offense. with the U. S. vs. Capurro and Weems [1906], 7 Phils., 24, and other Philippine Cases). We rule that the trial court did not err in not allowing the defense of double jeopardy. The nearest analogy to the two crimes of murder and sedition growing out of practically the same facts, which can be found in the American authorities, relate to the crimes of assault and riot or unlawful assembly. A majority of the JUDGMENT American courts have held that the offense of unlawful assembly and riot and the offense of assault and battery are distinct offenses; and that a The persistent effort of counsel to protect the interest of his client cannot be conviction or an acquittal for either does not bar a prosecution for the other permitted to becloud the prominent facts of the record. This is as clear a offense, even though based on the same facts. ([1835], 27 Fed. Cas., case of cold-blooded murder as ever came to our attention. The judicial State vs. Vazquez [1905], 9 Porto Rico, 488; contra, State vs. Lindsay [1868] archives of the Supreme Court of the Philippines Islands, for the full extent of 61, N. C., 458.) its existence extending over more than two decades, can be searched in vain for another case which compares with the instant one either in certainty It is merely stating the obvious to say that sedition is not the same offense as to guilt or in an unwavering necessity for a severe sentence. Not the as murder. Sedition is a crime not the same offense as murder. Sedition is a learned briefs of the counsel for the accused and for the people, not the eloquent pleas on the hand for mercy and on the other for conviction, not the mitigating circumstance, in the cases of the privates, that provided by article application of various legal authorities, not even the voluminous transcript of 11 of the Penal Code, as amended, relating to the degree of instruction and the oral testimony, either separately or all combined, constitute the sole education of the offenders. Certain members of the Court entertain an elements which irresistibly move us toward a stern judgment, but the most identical opinion, while other members take a contrary view. However, the eloquent pleaders for justice top the dead and safety for the living come from result will be the same, since there is not a unanimous vote with regard to the silent photographs of the dead and safety for the living come from the the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty on the private soldiers. silent photographs of the dead introduced in evidence under the prosaic denomination of Exhibits J, K, LL, M, N, Ñ, and O. The bloody spot on the Both the trial judge in the sedition case and the trial judge in the murder case escutcheon of an otherwise great organization must be removed. found a difference between the situation of the non-commissioned officers and of the common soldiers. The opinion was expressed by the two judges It is a disagreeable duty, therefore, which the members of this court are that the sergeants and corporals among the defendants deserved a larger called upon to perform. But that it is disagreeable should not of course measure experience of the non-commissioned officers and their more swerve us from its performance. Were cases of this nature allowed to pass responsible positions, we feel that this is a proper appreciation of the facts. without condemnation, the lives of mankind would constantly be imperilled and there would be no security in the State, for its peace and tranquility The trial judge found the crimes as falling within the provisions of article 89 would be upset and the authority of the Government would be put at naught of the Penal Code. Certain members of the court agree. Other members by the very agents of law and order who have sworn to protect it. The courts disagree and would make use of the provisions of articles 87 and 88 of the were instituted precisely to function in times of peril to the State, to protect Code. At least such doubt as exists should be resolved in favor of the the rights of the people, to mete out punishment to those who have rendered accused, and this means that, in conformity with the provisions of article 87, it unsafe for individuals to live at peace with their fellowmen. they are guilty of the crimes of multiple murder with grave injuries. The penalty is then death for the eleven sergeants and corporals, and cadena With the determination of the trial court as to the circumstances which fix the perpetua, imprisonment for a maximum period of forty years, for the sixty-six degree of the penalty, we are, generally speaking, in accord. The private soldiers. (See U. S. vs. Balaba [1917], 37 Phil., 260.) circumstance of evident premeditation was found to exist, thus qualifying the crime as that of murder. All the actions of the accused demonstrate that their The result is to modify the judgement appealed from by sentencing each of purpose was to kill any members of the city police whom they should meet. the Constabulary soldiers Patricio Rubio, Mariano Aragon, Silvino Ayangco, A considerable number of the accused in their confessions gave as the Guillermo Inis, Julian Andaya, Crispin Mesaluche, Prudencio Tasis, Silvino reason for the affray the desire to revenge themselves on the city police. Bacani, Salvador Gregorio, Juan Noromor, Petronilo Antonio, Patricio Bello, One of them while marching through the streets was heard to exclaim "They Nemesio Decena, Baldomero Rodriquez, P. E. Vallado, Pedro Layola, Felix killed one of us; we will kill ten (policemen) for one." Another was heard to Cenon (Liron), Dionisio Verdadero, Francisco Garcia, Domingo Peroche, exclaim, "Al cuartel!" and this was repeated by his companions, "Al cuartel!" Florentino Jacob, Lorenzo Tumboc, Paciano Caña, Domingo Canape, Arcadio San Pedro, Daniel Coralde, Vicente Casimiro, Casiano Guinto, The trial judge found present as circumstances which aggravate criminal Nemesio Gamus, Luis Borja, Severino Elefane, Vicente Tabien, Victor Atuel, liability, that the crime was committed in the nighttime and that advantage Venancio Mira, Benigno Tagavilla, Masaway, Marcos Marquez, Quinto was taken of superior strength, but, resolving the doubt in favor of the Desierto, Teofilo Llana, Felix Lamsing, Victorino Merto, Timoteo Opermaria, accused, was unable to find that the act was committed with treachery. We Bernabe Sison, Eusebio Cerrudo, Julia Acantilado, Maximo Perlas, Ignacio concur with His Honor, Judge Imperial. Advantage was taken of the shades Lechoncito, Pascual Dionio, Marcial Pelicia, Rafael Nafrada, Cornelio of night in order to better serve the unlawful purpose. Seventy-seven armed Ilizaga, Zacarias Baile, Roberto Palabay, Roque Ebol, Benito Garcia, Constabulary soldiers in military formation were vastly superior in number Cipriano Lizardo, Ildefonso de la Cruz, Juan Miranda, Honorio Bautista, and equipment to the policemen whom they happened to meet. Crisanto Salgo, Francisco Luzano, Marcelino Silos, Graciano Zapata, Felizardo Favinal, Nicanor Perlas, and Gaspar Andrada, to suffer cadena The trial judge found present no circumstance which would mitigate the perpetua, computed as imprisonment for forty years, and by sentencing criminal liability of the sergeants and corporals, but did estimate as a each of the sergeants and corporals Graciano L. Cabrera, Pascual Magno, Bonifacio Eugenio, E. E. Agbulos, Francisco Ingles, Clemente Manigdeg, Juan Abarquez, Pedro V. Mateo, Juan Regalado, Hilario, and Genaro STREET, J.: Elayda, to suffer the death penalty as provided by law at Bilibid Prison, at such time as shall be fixed by the Judge of First Instance sitting in Sala No. This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of 4 in the city of Manila, and as thus modified, judgment is affirmed with a proportional part of the costs of this instance against each appellant. So First Instance of the Province of Nueva Ecija, finding the appellant, Ignacio ordered. Nabong, guilty of the offense of sedition under section 8 of Act No. 292, as amended by Act No. 1692, and sentencing him to pay a fine of two hundred Araullo, C.J., Johnson, Street, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and requiring him Romualdez, JJ., concur. to pay the costs.

The appellant is an attorney engaged in the practice of law at Cabanatuan, in the Province of Nueva Ecija; and shortly before the incident with which we are here concerned, he had been retained to defend one Juan Footnotes Feleo against a charge of sedition that had been preferred against him. Feleo was in those days a recognized leader of the communists in Nueva 111 Phil., 803. Ecija, and was related by marriage to the appellant. In the latter part of January, 1931, one Antonio D. Ora, the head of the communists in the 241 Phil., 961. Philippine Islands, died in the municipality of Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija, and a necrological service in his memory was appointed by his followers to be held at Santa Rosa on the evening of January 30. The fact that said meeting was to be held came to the attention of Major Silvino Gallardo, in charge of the Philippine Constabulary in Cabanatuan, and he was informed that the red flag would be displayed in this meeting as an emblem of the Republic of the Philippines communists. Major Gallardo accordingly had an interview with the provincial SUPREME COURT fiscal over the question whether the display of the flag should be prevented. Manila The fiscal gave an opinion to the effect that the display of the red flag would be unlawful, and a copy of his opinion to this effect was placed in the hands EN BANC of Major Gallardo. As Major Gallardo left the court-house, he met the appellant Nabong, and knowing the relation between the latter and Feleo, G.R. No. L-36426 November 3, 1932 the leader of the communists in that province, Major Gallardo requested Nabong to interfere and prevent the display of the red flag at the meeting referred to. At this interview a copy of the fiscal's opinion was exhibited to THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, Nabong and was read by him in the presence of various persons. After vs. perusing the opinion Nabong said that he did not agree with the conclusion IGNACIO NABONG, defendant-appellant. of the fiscal; and he, therefore, refused to accompany the Constabulary officers and the deputy provincial fiscal to Santa Rosa, stating that, if he The appellant in his own behalf. were to go there, he would tell the communists that no law prohibited the Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee. display of the red flag and that he would induce them to display the same. He added that, if the communist were forbidden to use the flag, a disturbance would probably result. The Constabulary officers, accompanied by the deputy fiscal Villamor, They committed a real abuse in seizing the flag. The then departed for Santa Rosa. On their way they met Juan Feleo. In the members of the Constabulary are bad because they shoot even interview that followed, Feleo was shown the opinion of the fiscal and he innocent women, as it happened in Tayug. — In view of this, we was requested to refrain from displaying the red flag at the meeting in Santa ought to be united to suppress that abuse. Overthrow the present Rosa. Feleo promised to comply with this request, at least until he should government and establish our own government, the government of have discussed the matter with the communist leaders in Manila. the poor. Use your whip so that there may be marks on their sides.

Although Nabong, as above stated, had refused to accompany Major While Nabong was talking his words were attentively listened to by Gallardo and his companions on their trip to Santa Rosa, he waited a while deputy fiscal Villamor, as well as Captain Cacdac and Lieutenant Arambulo, at Cabanatuan and afterwards left for Santa Rosa, arriving in time to all of whom understood the Tagalog language. At the same time Captain participate in the meeting. At this meeting the red flag was displayed, Cacdac and Lieutenant Arambulo took notes of the substance of this part of contrary to the promise that Feleo had made to Major Gallardo; and upon the speech. Major Gallardo himself was also attentive to what was said, and learning of this fact, Major Gallardo, accompanied by several Constabulary from time to time, in the course of the speech, the major asked fiscal officers and soldiers, repaired to the place in Santa Rosa where the meeting Villamor whether the language then being used was seditious. An affirmative was being held. Upon arrival they found Feleo making a speech, and answer to these questions was not given by the fiscal until that part of the inasmuch as some of his utterances appeared to be of a seditious nature, speech was reached which contained the words above quoted, and after Major Gallardo caused him to be arrested and removed from the place. At those words had been spoken Nabong was arrested. the same time the red flag which was being displayed on the platform was removed. Words spoken by Feleo on this occasion became the subject of The proof in our opinion shows beyond reasonable doubt that the 1 prosecution in People vs. Feleo, G. R. No. 36428. language imputed to the appellant was used by him; and this is corroborated by the circumstance that the appellant, upon the occasion of a meeting of The arrest and removal of Feleo resulted in disorder among the the Nueva Ecija Bar Association in connection with this charge against people present at the meeting, and Major Gallardo found it advisable to Nabong, admitted having advocated in Santa Rosa the overthrow of the make a short speech explaining why Feleo had been arrested. Then, seeing Government. Such advocacy by the defendant is confirmed by the testimony Nabong present, Major Gallardo told him that the disturbance would have of Amado Estonilo, a witness for the defense. been avoided if he (Nabong) had followed the suggestion made to him at Cabanatuan by Major Gallardo. Nabong replied that the communists had The testimony for the defense tends to show that Nabong went to consulted him and that he had advised them to display the flag inasmuch as Santa Rosa for the purpose of preventing a disturbance, and that upon the act was not prohibited by any law. arrival in Santa Rosa he attempted to prevail upon Feleo not to display the red flag. The proof for the defense further suggests that Nabong is well After Feleo had been arrested and taken away, the proceedings at the affected to the Government and that the language used by him was not meeting were continued, and Jacinto Manahan spoke to the crowd. He was intended to advocate the overthrow of the Government by force. The trial followed by Ignacio Nabong who delivered a speech in Tagalog, occupying court seems to have attached little weight to this line of proof, and we are of some twenty minutes of time. In the course of this speech Nabong criticized the opinion that in this no error was committed. the members of the Constabulary, using words substantially to the following effect: The language used by the appellant clearly imported an overthrow of the Government by violence, and it should be interpreted in the plain and obvious sense in which it was evidently intended to be understood. The word "overthrow" could not have been intended as referring to an ordinary change or unrestricted or unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible by the exercise of the elective franchise. The use of the whip, an instrument use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this designed to leave marks on the sides of adversaries, is inconsistent with the freedom. (Gitlow vs. New York, 268 U. S., 652, 666.) lawphil.net mild interpretation which the appellant would have us impute to the language. It was the purpose of the speaker, beyond a doubt, to incite his With respect to the penalty appropriate to this case, we are of the hearers to the overthrow of organized government by unlawful means. The opinion that the trial court erred in not imposing upon the appellant words used by the appellant manifestly tended to induce the people to resist imprisonment for a period of six months in addition to the fine of P200. In and use violence against the agents of the Constabulary and to instigate the reaching this conclusion we bear in mind the fact that the appellant is a poor to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes. They also suggested lawyer by profession, and by reason of his intelligence and education, as and incited rebellious conspiracies, thereby tending to stir up the people well as by the obligation of his office as a lawyer, it was his duty to exercise against the lawful authorities and to disturb the peace of the community and his influence in support of the State. Instead of this he appears to have the order of the Government, in violation of section 8 of Act No. 292 of the made the cause of Feleo and other communistic agitators his own. In Philippine Commission, as amended. It is not necessary, in order to be particular, it is proved that the display of the red flag upon the occasion seditious, that the words used should in fact result in a rising of the people referred to was due to his advice. In taking this position and uttering the against the constituted authorities. The law is not aimed merely at actual seditious words which he is proved to have used, the appellant violated not disturbance, and its purpose is also to punish utterances which may only the written law but his oath of office as an attorney. endanger public order. As was said by the Supreme Court of the United States in Gitlow vs. New York (268 U. S., 652, 669), "Such utterances, by The act which is the subject of this prosecution was committed prior to their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the coming into effect of the Revised Penal Code; but the penalty provided the State. They threaten breaches of the peace and ultimate revolution. And for this offense in article 142 in relation with article 139 of said Code is the immediate danger is none the less real and substantial, because the greater than that imposed by the trial court, and by this court, under section effect of a given utterance cannot be accurately foreseen." 8 of Act No. 292. It results that nothing beneficial to the appellant is revealed in the new Code. The question of the seditious character of the language imputed in the information to the appellant was raised by demurrer to the information, but It being understood, therefore, that the penalty of imprisonment for six the demurrer was overruled and the defendant was required to plead. There months is imposed upon the appellant in addition to the fine, the judgment was no error in the action thus taken by the trial court. appealed from is affirmed. So ordered, with costs against the appellant.

It is suggested in the appellant's brief that the provisions of our law Avanceña, C.J., Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Abad Santos, Vickers, Imperial relating to sedition are incompatible with that portion of section 3 of the and Butte, JJ., concur. Jones Law which declares that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, but the appellant's brief does not contain any argument tending to support this suggestion. At any rate the point is not well taken. The acts contemplated in the provisions of law relating to sedition are not protected by the constitutional provision, being abuses rather than Footnotes the exercise of the right of speech and of the use of the press. It is a fundamental principle, long established, that the freedom of speech and of 1 Page 990, post. the press which is secured by the Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, EN BANC [G.R. No. L-8936. October 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FEDERICO GERONIMO alias Cmdr. OSCAR, ET AL., Defendants, FEDERICO GERONIMO alias Cmdr. OSCAR, Defendant-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N REYES, J. B. L., J.: In an information filed on June 24, 1954 by the provincial Fiscal in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Appellant Federico Geronimo, together with Mariano P. Balgos alias Bakal alias Tony, alias Tony Collante alias Taoic, alias Mang Pacio, alias Bonny Abundio Romagosa alias David, Jesus Polita alias Rex, Jesus Lava alias Jessie alias NMT, alias Balbas, alias Noli, alias Noli Metangere, alias NKVD, Juan Ocompo alias Cmdr. Bundalian, alias Tagle, Rosendo Manuel alias Cmdr. Sendong, alias Ruiz, Ernesto Herrero alias Cmdr. Ed, alias Rene, alias Eddy, Santiago Rotas alias Cmdr. Jessie, Fernando Principe alias Cmdr. Manding, Alfredo Saguni alias Godo, alias Terry, alias Terpy, Andres Diapera alias Maclang, alias Berto, alias Teny, Lorenzo Saniel alias Wenny, Silvestre Sisno alias Tomo, alias Albert, Teodoro Primavera alias Nestor, Lorenzo Roxas alias Argos, Vivencio Pineda alias Marquez, Pedro Anino alias Fernandez, Mauro Llorera alias Justo, Richard Doe alias Cmdr. Danny and John Doe alias Cmdr. Berion, alias Mayo, alias Cmdr. Paulito and many others, were charged with the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping committed as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary x x x x x x x x x “That on or about May 28, 1946 and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto continuously up to the present time in the province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and in other municipalities, cities and provinces and other parts of the country where they have chosen to carry out their rebellious activities, the above-named accused being then ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB) or otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) the latter being the armed force of said Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) having come to an agreement and decide to commit the crime of Rebellion, and therefore, conspiring together and therefrom Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000) consisting of various confederating among themselves with all of the thirty-one accused in denominations and including Fifty, One hundred and Five-Hundred Peso criminal case Nos. 14071, 14282, 14315, 14270, 15344 and with all the Bills and also took away with them type- writers and other Office supplies accused in criminal case No. 19166 of the Court of First Instance of Manila which they found in the Provincial Capitol Building, burning and looting with the other members, officers and/or affiliates of the Communist Party of private buildings in towns. the Philippines and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan and with many others whose identities and whereabouts are still unknown, acting in ‘3. That on or about the years 1951 to 1952 in the municipality of Pasacao, accordance with their conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, and mutually Camarines Sur, Philippines, a group of Armed Huks under Commander helping one another, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, Rustum raided the house of one Nemesio Palo, a police sergeant of help, support, promote, maintain, direct and/or command the Hukbalahaps Libmanan, Camarines Sur and as a result, said HUKS were able to capture (HUKS) or the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB), to rise publicly and said Nemesio Palo and once captured, with evident premeditation, treachery take arms against the government of the Republic of the Philippines, or and intent to kill, stab, shot and cut the neck of said Nemesio Palo thereby otherwise participate in such public armed uprisings for the purpose of causing the instantaneous death of Nemesio Palo. removing the territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to the ‘4. That on or about January 31, 1953, at barrio of Santa Rita, Del Gallego, government and laws thereof as in fact the said ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Camarines Sur a group of HMBS with Federico Geronimo alias Commander Bayan (HMB) or the Hukbalahaps’ (HUKS) pursuant to such conspiracy, Oscar ambushed and fired upon an Army Patrol headed by Cpl. Bayrante, have risen publicly and taken arms against the Government of the Republic resulting in seriously wounding of Pfc. Paneracio Torrado and Eusebio Gruta of the Philippines to attain said purpose, by then and there making armed a civilian. raids, sorties, and ambuscades, attacks against the Philippine Constabulary, the civilian guards, the Police and the Army Patrols and other detachments ‘5. That on or about February 1954 at barrio Cotmo, San Fernando, as well as upon innocent civilians, and as a necessary means to commit the Camarines Sur, a group of four HMBS led by accused Commander Oscar crime of Rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, have with evident premeditation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously killed one then and there committed wanton acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, Policarpio Tipay a barrio lieutenant.’“ (Appellee’s brief, pp. 1-8) kidnapping and planned destructions of private and public property and Accused Federico Geronimo first entered a plea of not guilty to the plotted the liquidation of government officials, to create and spread disorder, information. When the case was called for trial on October 12, 1954, terror, confusion, chaos and fear so as to facilitate the accomplishment of however, he asked the permission of the court to substitute his original plea the aforesaid purpose, among which are as follows, to with one of guilty, and was allowed to change his plea. On the basis of the wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary plea of guilty, the fiscal recommended that the penalty of life imprisonment ‘1. That on or about April 28, 1949 at Kilometer 62 at Barrio Salubsob, be imposed upon the accused, his voluntary plea of guilty being considered municipality of Nueva Ecija, an undetermined number of HUKS led by as a mitigating circumstance. Geronimo’s counsel, on the other hand, Commanders Viernes, Marzan, Lupon and Mulong did, then and there, argued that the penalty imposable upon the accused was only prision mayor, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously ambush, assault, attack and fired upon for the reason that in his opinion, there is no such complex crime as rebellion the party of Mrs. Aurora A. Quezon and her PC escort whom they with murders, robberies, and kidnapping, because the crimes of murders considered as their enemies resulting in the killing of Mrs. Aurora A. Quezon, robberies, and kidnapping being the natural consequences of the crime of Baby Quezon, Mayor Bernardo of Quezon City, Major P. San Agustin, rebellion, the crime charged against the accused should be considered only Lieutenant Lasam, Philip Buencamino III, and several soldiers and the as simple rebellion. On October 18, 1954, the trial court rendered judgment wounding of General Jalandoni and Captain Manalang. finding the accused guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand giving him the ‘2. That on or about August 26, 1950 in Santa Cruz, Laguna, about one benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, sentenced hundred armed HUKS with intent to gain and for the purpose of securing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of P10,000, to supplies and other materials for the support and meintenance of the indemnify the heirs of the various persons killed, as listed in the information, Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMBS) did, then and there, willfully, in the sum of P6,000 each, and to pay the proportionate costs of the unlawfully and feloniously and forcibly bringing the Cashier of the Provincial proceedings. From this judgment, accused Federico Geronimo appealed, Treasury, Mr. Vicente Reventar from his house to the Provincial Capitol and raising the sole question of whether the crime committed by him is the at the point of guns forced him to open the Treasury Vault and took complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, or violence referred to is that inflicted upon civilians. Again, to restrict “serious simple rebellion. violence” to acts short of homicide, is to unwarrantedly assume that the broad term “violencia grave” is used in the limited sense of “lesiones After mature consideration, a majority of seven justices 1 of this Court are of graves”, which in our Penal Code has a specialized signification. In truth, if the opinion that the issue posed by Appellant has been already decided in physical injuries constitute grave violence, so would killing necessarily be, if the recent resolution of this Court in the case of People vs. Hernandez et al., not more. Additionally, it may be observed that rebellion is by nature a crime (99 Phil., 529; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary21 Lawyers Journal, No. 7 [July 31, of masses or multitudes, involving crowd action, that cannot be confined a 1956], p. 316). As in treason, where both intent and overt act are necessary, priori within predetermined bounds. (People vs. Hernandez, supra; chan the crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of both the armed roblesvirtualawlibraryPeople vs. Almazan, C. A., 31 Off. Gaz. 1932). Hence uprising for the purposes expressed in article 134 of the Revised Penal the broad terms employed by the statute. 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 The prosecution insists that the “more serious” crime of murder cannot be one crime, and that without either of them the crime of rebellion legally does justifiably regarded as absorbed by the lesser crime of rebellion. In the first not exist, is shown by the absence of any penalty attached to article 134. 2 It place, it is not demonstrated that the killing of an individual is intrinsically follows, therefore that any or all of the acts described in article 135, when less serious or less dangerous to society than the violent subversion of committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends described established government, which emperils the lives of many citizens, at least in article 134, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion, and cannot be during the period of the struggle for superiority between rebels and loyalists. regarded or penalized as distinct crimes in themselves. In law they are part If, on the other hand, murder is punished by reclusion perpetua to death, and and parcel of the rebellion itself, and cannot be considered as giving rise to a rebellion only by prision mayor, this leniency is due to the political purpose separate crime that, under article 48 of the Code, would constitute a that impels every rebellious act. As noted by Groizard (“Codigo Penal de complex one with that of rebellion. 1870”, Vol. 3, p. 239) — The terms employed in the first paragraph of article 135 of the Revised “El analisis de toda clase de delitos politicos ofrece para el jurisconsulto un Penal Code to describe the component of violence in the crime of rebellion resultado precioso, pues pone de relieve las diferencias cardinales que are broad and general. The Spanish text (which is the one controlling, existen entre esta clase de hechos y los delitos comunes; chan People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil. 665) states that the acts of the rebels may roblesvirtualawlibraryentre los reos de aquellos crimenes y los reos de estos consists of — otros. Para los delitos comunes, la sociedad tiene una constante y energica reprobacion que no atenua ni el trascurso de tiempo ni el cambio de las “Sosteniendo combate 3 con la fuerza leal, causando estragos en las ideas. Para los delitos politicos, no. Quien se atrevera si de honrado se propiedades, ejerciendo violencia grave, exigiendo contribuciones, o precia, a hacer alarde de la amistad de un hombre condenado por robo o distroyendo caudales publicos de su inversion legitima.” por asesinato? Y quien no ha tendido la mano cariñosa sin perder nada de If all the overt acts charged in the information against herein Appellant were respetabilidad, a algun reo de un delito politico en la serie continuada de committed for political ends or in furtherance of the rebellion, they come revoluciones y contrarevoluciones que constituyen desgraciadamente los within the preceding description. Thus, count 4 (ambushing and firing upon ultimos periodos de nuestra historia? La consumacion del delito y el exito de army patrol) constitutes engaging in combat with the loyal troops; chan la rebelion, ya lo hemos dicho, para el reo politico, es mas que la impunidad, roblesvirtualawlibrarycount 2 (taking funds and equipment from the es el triunfo, es el poder, es el Gobierno, es casi la gloria. Pero no sucede lo Provincial Treasury of Laguna) is diverting public funds from their ligitimate mismo tratandose de delitos comunes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary la purpose; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarywhile the killings outlined in the other consumacion del delito ni apaga el remordimiento, ni aleja del criminal el counts (1, 3 and 5) are instances of committing serious violence. peligro de la pena, ni mejora en nada su condicion respecto de la justicia. Hay, pues, entre el delito comun y el delito politico, entre las personas The majority of the Court found no cogent reason for limiting “commission of responsables de unos y otros diferencias sustanciales, y el mayor error que serious violence” in article 135 to hostilities against the Government’s armed en el estado actual de los estudios juridicos puede cometer el legislador es forces exclusively; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryfor in that case, the former no apreciar eses diferencias, sobre todo en la aplicacion de las penas.” expression would be redundant and mere duplication of “engaging in combat” with loyal troops, also described in the same article. If the infliction And our history of three centuries of uninterrupted rebellions against of “serious violence” was separately expressed in the law, it is because the sovereign Spain, until she was finally driven from our shores, suffices to explain why the penalty against rebellion, which stood at reclusion temporal to have been done in furtherance of the rebellion or facilitated its maximum to death in the Spanish Penal Code of 1870, was reduced only commission in any way. The ravisher would then be liable for two separate prision mayor in our revised Penal Code of 1932. crimes, rebellion and rape, and the two could not be merged into a juridical whole. In addition, the government counsel’s theory that an act punished by more serious penalty cannot be absorbed by an act for which a lesser penalty is It is argued that the suppression in the present Penal Code of article 244 of provided, is not correct. The theory is emphatically refuted by the treatment the old one (article 259 of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870) indicates the accorded by the Penal Code to the crime of forcible abduction, for which the intention of the Legislature to revive the possibility of the crime of rebellion law imposes only reclusion temporal (article 342), notwithstanding that such being complexed with the individual felonies committed in the course crime necessarily involves illegal detention of the abducted woman for which thereof, because the suppressed article prohibited such complexing. The article 267 of the same Penal Code fixes the penalty of reclusion temporal, text of the suppressed provision is as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary in its maximum period, to death. The same situation obtains in the crime of slavery defined in article 272, whereby the kidnapping of a human being for “ART. 244. Los delitos particulares cometidos en una rebelion o sedicion, o the purpose of enslaving him is punished with prision mayor and a fine of not con motivo de ellas, seran castigados respectivamente segun las more than P10,000.00, when kidnapping itself is penalized by article 267 disposiciones de este codigo. with a much higher penalty. Cuando no puedan descubrirse sus autores, seran penados como tales los And we have already pointed out in the Hernandez resolution that to admit jefes principales de la rebelion o sedicion.” the complexing of the crime of rebellion with the felonies committed in The first paragraph is to the effect that the “delitos particulares” (meaning furtherance thereof, would lead to these undesirable felonies committed for private non-political ends, as held by the results:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (1) to make the punishment for rebellion commentators Cuello Calon and Viada, since the Penal Code does not heavier than that of treason, since it has been repeatedly held that the latter classify crimes into “general” and “particular”) are to be dealt with separately admits no complexing with the overt acts committed in furtherance of the from the rebellion, punishment for each felony to be visited upon the treasonous intent, and, in addition, requires two witnesses to every overt act perpetrators thereof. This paragraph has no bearing on the question of which is not true in the case of rebellion; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary(2) to complex crimes, but is a mere consequence of the fact that the delicts nullify the policy expressed in article 135 (R.P.C.) of imposing lesser penalty committed for private ends bear no relation to the political crime of rebellion upon the rebel followers as compared to their leaders, because under the (other than a coincidence of time) and therefore must be separately dealt complexing theory every rebel, leader or follower, must suffer the heavier with. This is so obvious that, as Groizard pointed out (Vol. 3, p. 650), such penalty in its maximum degree; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand (3) to violate action (their punishment as a private misdeed) would be taken by the courts the fundamental rule of criminal law that all doubts should be resolved in even if this first paragraph of article 244 had not been written. favor of the accused:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary“in dubiis reus est absolvendus”; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary“nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine Far more significant, in the opinion of the majority, is that our Revised Penal lege.” Code of 1932 did not revive the rule contained in the second paragraph of article 244 of the old Penal Code (Article 259 of the Spanish), whereby the Of course, not every act of violence is to be deemed absorbed in the crime rebel leaders were made criminally responsible for the individual felonies of rebellion solely because it happens to be committed simultaneously with committed during the rebellion or on occasion thereof, in case the real or in the course of the rebellion. If the killing, robbing, etc. were done for perpetrators could not be found. In effect that paragraph established a private purposes or profit, without any political motivation, the crime would command responsibility; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand in suppressing it, the be separately punishable and would not be absorbed by the rebellion. But Legislature plainly revealed a policy of rejecting any such command ever then, the individual misdeed could not be taken with the rebellion to responsibility. It was the legislative intent, therefore, that the rebel leaders constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts and intent would be (and with greater reason, the mere followers) should be held accountable unrelated to each other; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand the individual crime solely for the rebellion, and not for the individual crimes (delitos particulares) would not be a means necessary for committing the rebellion as it would not committed during the same for private ends, unless their actual participation be done in preparation or in furtherance of the latter. This appears with therein was duly established. In other words, the suppression of article 244 utmost clarity in the case where an individual rebel should commit of the old Penal Code virtually negates the contention that the rebellion and rape; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarycertainly the latter felony could not be said the individual misdeeds committed during the same should legally constitute one complex whole. Whether or not such policy should be maintained is not 752; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryU.S. vs. Agcaoili, 31 Phil., 91; chan for the courts, but for the Legislature, to say. roblesvirtualawlibraryU.S. vs. Jamad, 37 Phil., 305). But while a majority of seven justices 4 are agreed that if the overt acts In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is modified and the detailed in the information against the Appellant had been duly proved to accused convicted for the simple (non-complex) crime of rebellion under have been committed “as a necessary means to commit the crime of article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and also for the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof”, then the murder; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand considering the mitigating effect of accused could only be convicted of simple rebellion, the opinions differ as to his plea of guilty, the accused-Appellant Federico Geronimo is hereby whether his plea of guilty renders the accused amenable to punishment not sentenced to suffer 8 years of prision mayor and to pay a fine of P10,000, only for rebellion but also for murder or other crimes. (without subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to article 38 of the Penal Code) for the rebellion; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand, as above explained, for the Six justices 5 believe that conceding the absence of a complex crime, still, murder, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to not less than 10 years by his plea of guilty the accused-Appellant has admitted all the acts and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 18 years of reclusion described in the five separate counts of the information; chan temporal; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryto indemnify the heirs of Policarpio roblesvirtualawlibraryand that if any of such counts constituted an Tibay in the sum of P6,000; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand to pay the independent crime committed within the jurisdiction of the lower court as costs. SO ORDERED. seems to be the case under the facts alleged in Count No. 5 (the killing of Policarpio Tibay), then the avertment in the information that it was Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, perpetrated in furtherance of the rebellion, being a mere conclusion, cannot Concepcion and Felix, JJ., concur. be a bar toAppellant’s conviction and punishment for said offense, he having failed, at the arraignment, to object to the information on the ground of multiplicity of crimes charged. Hence, the acts charged in Counts 1 to 4 Separate Opinions cannot be taken into consideration in this case, either because they were committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court below (Count 1), or because the allegations do not charge the Appellant’s participation (Count MONTEMAYOR, J., concurring and 3), or else the acts charged are essentially acts of rebellion, with out private dissenting:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary motives (Counts 2 and 4). After stating the facts and the issues in this case, the learned majority Five justices, 6 on the other hand, hold that by his plea of guilty, the accused opinion declares that the majority of seven Justices of the Court are of the avowed having committed the overt acts charged in all five counts; chan opinion that the issue posed by theAppellants has been already decided in roblesvirtualawlibrarybut that he only admitted committing them in fact “as a the recent resolution of this Court in the case of People vs. Hernandez, et necessary means”, “in connection and in furtherance of the rebellion”, as al., (99 Phil., 529). Had the considerations ended there and the case was expressly alleged by the prosecution. This is not only because the decided of the basis of said Hernandez resolution, which the majority of information expressly alleged the necessary connection between the overt Justices apparently ratified, I would have contended myself with merely acts and the political ends pursued by the accused, but in addition, it failed citing and making as part of my concurrence and dissent, my dissenting to charge that the Appellant was impelled by private motives. Wherefore, opinion in that same case of Hernandez, supra. However, the majority not such overt acts must be taken as essential ingredients of the single crime of only ratifies and emphasizes the considerations and doctrine laid down in rebellion, and the accused pleaded guilty to this crime alone. Hence, there the Hernandez case, but makes further considerations, additional and new, being no complex crime, the Appellant can only be sentenced for the lone and even quote authorities, for which reason, I again find myself in a position crime of rebellion. Even more, the minority contends that under the very where I am constrained not only to cite my dissenting opinion in the theory of the majority, the circumstances surrounding the plea are such as to Hernandez case, but also make further observations not only to discuss the at least cast doubt on whether the accused clearly understood that he was new point raised, but also in an endeavor to clarify and present a clear pleading guilty to two different crimes or to only one; chan picture of our present law on rebellion and its origin. roblesvirtualawlibraryso that in fairness and justice, the case should be sent back for a rehearing by the Court of origin, to ascertain whether or not the accused fully realized the import of his plea (U.S. vs. Patala, 2 Phil., For purposes of ready reference, I deem it convenient to reproduce articles The majority says, and I quote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code, reading as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary “As in treason, where both intent and overt acts are necessary, the crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of both the armed uprising for the “ART. 134. Rebellion or insurrection. — How committed. — The crime of purposes expressed in article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, and the overt rebellion or insurrection is committed by being publicly and taking arms acts of violence described in the first paragraph of article 135. That both against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to purpose and overt acts are essential components of one crime, and that said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part without either of them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist, is shown thereof of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or of depriving the by the absence of any penalty attached to article 134.” Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. I cannot agree wholly to the correctness of the above proposition. It is true that in treason as well as in rebellion both intent and overt acts are “ART. 135. Penalty for rebellion or insurrection. — Any person who necessary, excluding of course conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion or insurrection, or who, while where overt acts are not necessary (article 136), but what I consider the flaw holding any public office or employment takes part therein, engaging in war in the thesis is the claim that in rebellion, the armed uprising is the intent and against the forces of the Government, destroying property or committing the overt acts are those act of violence described in the first paragraph of serious violence, exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the article 135, namely, engaging the Government forces in combat, causing lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated, shall suffer the damage to property, committing serious violence, etc. To me, the intent in penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 20,000 pesos. rebellion is the purpose, the intention and the objective of the rebels to remove from the allegiance of the government or its laws the territory of the “Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or any armed rebellion shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period. forces, etc., and the overt act or acts are the rising publicly and taking arms “When the rebellion or insurrection shall be under the command of unknown against said Government. Article 134 contains and includes both elements, leaders, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed intent and overt acts to constitute a complete crime. Said article 134, without receipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar making any reference to any other article, described the manner rebellion is acts, on behalf of the rebels shall be deemed the leader of such rebellion.” committed, not partially but fully and completely, without any qualification whatsoever, and said description is complete in order to render persons I am also reproducing the Spanish text of the above Article 135 because as included therein as having consummated the crime of rebellion. Article 134 well stated in the majority opinion on the strength of the case People vs. in part reads. Manaba, 58 Phil., 665, the Spanish text of the Rev. P. Code was the one approved by the Legislature and so is controlling. “ART. 134. Rebellion or insurrection. — How committed. — The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms “ART. 135. Pena para la rebelion o insurreccion. — Sera castigado con against the Government” etc. prision mayor y multa que no exceda de 20,000 pesos el promovedor, sostenedor o jefe de la rebelion o insurreccion o el que hubiere tomado It is necessary to consider the origin and history of the provisions of articles parte en ella siendo funcionario o empleado publico, sosteniendo combate 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code as I have previously reproduced. contra la fuerza leal, causando estragos en las propiedades, ejerciendo This, in order to have a clearer understanding of the meaning of both articles violencia grave, exigiendo contribuciones, o distrayendo caudales publicos and the spirit and intention behind them. Our present Revised Penal Code is de su inversion legitima. a revision of our Penal Code promulgated in the Philippines on July 14, 1887 (later referred to as the Penal Code of 1887), based upon and taken almost “Los meros afiliados o ejecutores de la rebelion seran castigados con prision bodily from the Spanish Penal Code of 1870 (later referred to as the Penal mayor en su grado minimo. Code of 1870). Our Penal Code of 1887 adopted in great measure the “Cuando los jefes de una rebelion o insurreccion fueran desconocidos, se provisions of the Penal Code of 1870. However, the provisions of our Penal reputaran por tales los que de hecho hubieren dirigido a los demas, llevado Code of 1887 on rebellion, were superseded and replaced by the provisions la voz por ellos, firmado recibos y otros escritos expedidos a su nombre o of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, which governed rebellion up to ejercitado otros actos semejantes en representacion de los rebeldes.” 1932 when the Revised Penal Code went into effect. In dealing with the crime of rebellion, the Committee on Revision abandoned the provisions of “ART. 243. Son resos de rebelion los que se alzaren publicamente y en Act No. 292 and went back to and adopted those of the Penal Code of 1870, abierta hostilidad contra el Gobierno para cualquiera de los objetos although it included the more benign and lighter penalties imposed in Act No. siguientes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 292. The provisions of the Penal Code of 1870 on rebellion are rather complicated for the reason that in defining and penalizing acts of rebellion, “1.° Destronar al Rey, deponer el Regente o Regencia del Reino, o privarles they make reference to the provisions regarding crimes against the form of de su libertad personal u, obligarles a ejecutar un acto contrario a su government. For this reason, to have an over all picture of the law on voluntad. rebellion, we have to make reference to and cite, even reproduce, portions “2.° Impedir la celebracion de las elecciones para Diputados a Cortes o of the codal provision on crimes against the form of government. For the Senadores en todo el Reino, o la reunion legitima de las mismas. sake of brevity and so as not to unduly lengthen this opinion, I shall confine myself to the reproduction of the pertinent provisions of the Spanish Penal “3.° Disolver las Cortes o impedir la deliberacion de alguno de los Cuerpos Code of 1870, for being the source of our Penal Code of 1887, besides the Colegisladores o arrancarles alguna resolucion. likelihood if not a fact that since as already stated, the provisions of our “4.° Ejecutar cualquiera delos delitos previstos en el art. 165. Penal Code of 1887 on rebellion were not in force at the time of the revision, the Committee revising said Penal Code of 1887, must have considered “5.° Sustraer el Reino o parte de el o algun cuerpo de tropa de tierra o de mainly the provisions of the Penal Code of 1870. mar, o cualquiera otra clase de fuersa armada, de la obediencia al supremo Gobierno. Art. 184 of the Sp. P. Code of 1870 reads, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary “6.° Usar y ejercer por si o despojar a los Ministros de la Corona de sus Delitos contra la forma de Gobierno facultades constitucionales, o impedirles o coartarles su libre ejercicio. “ART. 184. Los que se alzaren publicamente en armas y en abierta ARTS. 244, 245 and 246 of the same code read as hostilidad para perperar cualquiera de los delitos previstos en el articulo follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 181, seran castigados con las penas siguientes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary “ART. 244. — Los que induciendo y determinando a los rebeldes, hubieron “1.° Los que hubieren promovido el alzamiento o lo sostuvieren o lo promovido o sostuvieren la rebellion, y los candillos principales de esta, dirigieren o aparecieren como sus principales autores, con la pena de seran castigados con la pena de reclusion temporal en su grado maximo a reclusion temporal en su grado maximo a muerte. muerte. “2.° Los que ejercieren un mando subalterno, con la de reclusion temporal a “ART. 245. — Los ejerciaren un mando subalterno en la rebelion incurriran muerte, si fueren personas constituidas en Autoridad civil o eclesiastica, o si en la pena de reclusion temporal a muerte, si se encontraren en alguno de hubiere habido combate entre la fuerza de su mando y la fuerza publica fiel los casos previstos en el parrafo primero del numero 2.° del articulo al Gobierno, o aqu;lla hubiere causado estragos en las propiedades de los 184; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryy con la de reclusion temporal si no se particulares, de los pueblos o del Estado, cortado las lineas telegraficas o encontraren incluidos en ninguno de ellos. las ferreas, ejercido violencias graves contra las personas, exigido contribuciones o distraido los candales publicos de su legitima inversion. “ART. 246. — Los meros ejecutores de la rebelion seran castigados con la pena de prision mayor en su grado medio a reclusion temporal en su grado “Fuera de estos casos, se impondra al culpable la pena de reclusion minimo, en los casos previstos en el parrafo primero del numero 2.° del temporal. articulo 184; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryy con la de prision mayor en toda su “3.° Los meros ejecutores del alzamiento con la pena de prision mayor en extension no estando en el mismo comprendidos. su grado medio a reclusion temporal en su grado medio a reclusion It will be observed that in drafting Art. 134 of our Revised Penal Code, the temporal en su grado minimo, en los casos previstos en el parrafo primero Committee on Revision (later referred to as Code Committee) adopted, with del numero anterior, y con la de prision mayor en toda su extension, en los the exclusion of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of Art. 243 which refer to the King comprendidos en el parrafo segundo del propio numero.” and the legislative bodies of the Kingdom of Spain, the provisions of said art. Art. 243 of the same code reads as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 243 of the Penal Code of 1870, particularly, the first part thereof and also No. 5, even their phraseology — Delitos contra el Orden Publico “son reos de rebelion los que se alzaren publicamente y en abierta property, or committed serious violence, etc. (“sosteniendo combate contra hostilidad contra el Gobierno” cralaw and “sustraer el Reino o parte de el o la fuerza leal, causendo estragos en las propeidades, ejerciendo violencia algun cuerpo de tropa de tierra o de mar, o cualquiera otra clase de fuerza grave, exigiendo, contribuciones, o distrayendo caudales publicos de su armada, de la obediencia al supremo Gobierno”, (the crime of rebellion or enversion legitima”). (Spanish text of article 135 of our revised Penal Code). insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the I cannot believe that the Code Committee in making the merger abandoned Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said the idea of punishing the promotion, maintenance, and leadership of a Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part rebellion in itself, and that to penalize the same, it must be connected and thereof of any body of land, naval or other armed forces), (our article 134). coupled with the commission of any or all of the acts above mentioned, which under the Penal Code of 1870, refers only to those holding a Now, as regards the penalty for rebellion, it will be seen that under article subordinate command in the rebellion. I am convinced that the whole aim 244 (Penal Code of 1870), persons who by inciting and encouraging the and intention of the Code Committee was merely to equalize the penalty for rebels shall have brought about or shall sustain a rebellion as well as the both sets of rebels — those leaders, promoters, and maintainers of the principal leaders of such rebellion as are penalized with reclusion temporal rebellion on the one hand, and those holding a subordinate command under in its maximum degree of death. Under article 245, same code, those the qualification stated in paragraph 1 of article 135, but that the former, holding a subordinate command in the rebellion are penalized with reclusion because of their more serious and heavier criminal responsibility their temporal to death, if they are included in any of the cases provided for in promotions, maintenance, and leadership of the rebellion were sufficiently paragraph 1 of No. 2 of article 184, which for purposes of ready reference deserving of the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not, to exceed we again reproduce, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary P20,000; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarybut for those rebels with lesser “ cralaw si fueren personas constituidas en Autoridad civil o eclesiastica, o si responsibility, to deserve the same penalty, they must either be holding any hubiere habido combate entre la fuerza de su mando y la fuerza publica fiel public office or employment, or if not, that their forces have engaged al Gobierno, o aguella hubiere causado estragos en las propiedades de los Government troops in combat, or have caused damage to property, etc. particulares, de los pueblos o del Estado, cortado las lineas telegraficas o Stated differently, the clause “sosteniendo combate contra la fuerza leal, las vias ferreas, ejercido violencias graves contra las personas, exigido causando estragos en las propeidades, ejerciendo violencia grave,” etc., contribuciones o distraidos los caudales publicos de su legitima inversion.”; refers to and qualifies not the leaders, promoters, and maintainers of the rebellion, but only those rebels of lesser responsibility. In other words for the or if not so included, the penalty is reclusion temporal. leaders, promoters and maintainers of the rebellion, the rebellion is Under article 246, those persons merely participating in the rebellion are consummated and subject to punishment under article 134. It may be that penalized with prision mayor in its medium degree to reclusion temporal in the Code Committee that drafted article 135 in its endeavors to achieve a its minimum degree, in the cases provided for in paragraph 1 of No. 2 of phraseology as simple and concise as possible, did not convey its purpose article 184 as above reproduced, but those not so included, will suffer the and intent any too plainly and clearly, but I venture to assert that that was penalty only of prision mayor. what it meant. In case of doubt as to the real meaning of article 135, recourse should be had to its source, namely, articles 244 and 245 in As I have stated in my dissenting opinion in the Hernandez case, supra, one relation with No. 2 paragraph 1 of article 184 of the Spanish Penal Code of of the purposes of the revision of our old Penal Code of 1887 was 1870, for which reason I deemed it necessary to reproduce as I did said simplification and elimination of provisions considered unnecessary, in proof articles. of which, while the old Penal Code contained 611 articles, the Revised Penal Code has but 367 articles. There is every reason to believe that the code For the foregoing reasons, I cannot agree with the majority that the Committee in its endeavor at simplification did not deem it necessary to commission of the acts mentioned in Article 134 alone, even by the leaders provide a special penalty for those who promote, maintain, or head a and promoters of the rebellion, carry no penal sanction. Besides the rebellion as does article 244, and it made a merger or combination of articles considerations or conclusions already adduced against said holding and 244 and 245, so as to impose the same penalty on (1) the promoters and theory of the majority, there are other reasons. For instance, the second leaders of the rebellion and (2) on those who are either holding any public paragraph of article 135 provides that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary office or employment (instituida en autoridad civil o eclesiastica) or if not so “Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a holding any public office, that their forces have engaged the forces of the rebellion shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.” Government in combat, or have caused damage to Government or private Under this provision, one merely participating in a rebellion, that is rising Then, under article 138 of the Revised Penal Code, persons who, without publicly and taking arms against the government under article 134, is taking arms or being in open hostility against the Government under article penalized with prision mayor in its minimum period. But under the theory of 134, merely incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified in said the majority, the leaders of the rebellion who perform the same acts defined article, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, etc., they are in the same article 134 may not be punished, unless they or their forces punished with prision mayor in its minimum period. But according to the engage Government troops or cause damage to property, commit serious interpretation by the majority of articles 134 and 135, if those same persons, violence, etc. That would seem to be unjust and illogical. not content with merely making speeches, issuing proclamations, etc., intended to incite others to commit the acts specified in article 134, actually Again, articles 136 and 138 of the Revised Penal Code penalize conspiracy commit those acts themselves, they incur no penalty. I confess I fail to follow and proposal to commit rebellion and inciting to rebellion. I reproduce said the reasoning of the majority on the point. two articles:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary “Rebellion or insurrection. — How committed. — The crime of rebellion or “ART. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection. — insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be Government”. (Article 134) punished, respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed P5,000, and by prision correccional in its It is true that article 134 of our Revised Penal Code itself does not impose medium period and a fine not exceeding P2,000.” any penal sanction; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythe reason is that it is a mere definition, just as article 243 of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870 from which “ART. 138. — Inciting to rebellion or insurrection. — The penalty of prision it was taken, merely defines and does not penalize the acts therein mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, without enumerated. The fact that the article defining a crime or describing how it is taking arms or being in open hostility against the Government, shall incite committed does not itself impose the penalty does not necessarily mean that others to the execution of any of the acts specified in article 134 of this the act or acts so defined do not constitute a crime; chan Code, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or roblesvirtualawlibraryotherwise, all the definition and all the detailed other representations tending to the same end.” description of the commission of said crime would become empty, Under article 136, if two or more persons merely conspire and come to an meaningless and useless. The penalty for rebellion is found in the following agreement to commit rebellion or insurrection, which is defined in article 134, article of 135, just as it is found in articles 244, 245 and 246 of the Penal without actually committing it or performing the acts mentioned in said article Code of 1870. 134, they are already guilty and are punished with prision correcional in its I believe that when a group of dissidents or Hukbalahaps armed and maximum period and a fine not exceeding P5,000; chan determined to overthrow the Government raid, say, an isolated town, scare roblesvirtualawlibraryand if the same two or more persons just propose to away the two or three policemen on guard at the presidencia, take some other person or persons the commission of rebellion under article 134, possession of the building even for a few hours, raise the rebel flag, call and they are punished with prision correccional in its medium period and a fine of herd the residents before the presidencia, and make speeches proclaiming not exceeding P2,000. In fine, persons merely agreeing and deciding among the regime of the dessidents and advising the gathering to transfer their themselves to rise publicly and take arms against the Government for the allegiance and loyalty from the constituted Government to the rebels and purpose mentioned in article 134, without actually rising publicly and taking stop paying taxes to said government and instead contribute the funds to the arms against the Government, or if they merely propose the commission of Huks, without firing a single shot or committing any of the acts enumerated said acts to other persons without actually performing those overt acts under in article 135, the crime of rebellion is complete and consummated and is article 134, they are already subject to punishment. But under the theory of subject to penalty. In my modest research for authorities on the subject of the majority, if those same persons, not content with merely conspiring and rebellion, I came across the case of People of the Philippines vs. Benito agreeing to commit the acts of rebellion or proposing its commission to Cube of the Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 1069-R, decided by that court on others, actually go out and actually carry out their conspiracy and November 24, 1948. There it was held that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary agreement, and rise publicly and take arms against the Government, under article 134 there is no penalty. That seems to me rather unreasonable and “ cralaw The mere fact that Appellant knowingly identified himself with an hard to understand. organization that was openly fighting to overthrow the Government was enough to make him guilty of the crime of rebellion. Under our laws it is not necessary that one has engaged the Government in a clash of arms to (McCarty v. Goodsman, 167 N. W. 503 cited in L. R. A. Digest, Vol. 7, p. commit the crime of rebellion. It is not even necessary that there be a clash 8892) of arms between the rebels and the Government. (U. S. vs. Sadian, 3 Phil., 323.) “ I agree with the majority that any or all the acts described in article 135 when committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion become absorbed Incidentally, it may be stated that said decision penned by Mr. Justice in said rebellion. The question now is to determine the meaning and scope Gutierrez David was concurred in and signed by Mr. Justice J. B. L. Reyes, of said acts. The first act is “sosteniendo combate contra la fuerza leal”, the writer of the present majority decision. which was erroneously translated into English in article 135 to “engaging in war against the forces of the Government”. In the case of Hernandez, supra, The same Court of Appeals, in the case of People vs. Geronimo Perez, G. we all accepted and followed that English translation, but later found that it R. No. 9196-R, involving rebellion cited with favor its previous decision in the was the Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code that was approved by the case of People vs. Cube, supra, and apparently affirmed and ratified the Legislature. Naturally, we are bound by the Spanish text. doctrine laid therein. Incidentally, if I be permitted a little digression, the majority resolution in that Now, as to the nature and application of penalty of rebellion under our case of Hernandez laid much emphasis on the phrase “engaging in war”, Revised Penal Code, I have already endeavored to show that our Art. 135 is and would have included and absorbed in the rebellion the killings of and based upon and taken from articles 244, 245 and 246 of this Penal Code of other outrages to civilians. I quote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 1870, though drastically reducing and mitigating the severity of the penalties found in the Spanish Penal Code, and that the Code Committee in its effort “One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of at simplification, made a merger of Arts. 244, 245 and 246. The Code said article 135, is by “engaging in war against the forces of the government” Committee, I feel certain, adopted in principle the scientific and equitable and ‘committing serious violence’ in the prosecution of said ‘war’. These classification of the different persons taking part in the rebellion, scaling expressions imply everything that war connotes, punishments according to their position in the rebellion and extent and namely:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary resort to arms, requisition of property and seriousness of their responsibility. The Code Committee may not have made services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damage to itself entirely clear, and in case of doubt we should interpret Art. 135 in property, physical injuries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and relation to and considering the philosophy of the Spanish Penal Code unhappiness that war carries in its wake — except that, very often, it is provisions on the subject of penalties on rebellion in order to avoid the worse than war in the international sense, for it involves internal struggle, a unreasonable, unequitable, even absurd results I have already pointed out. fight between brothers, with a bitterness and passion or ruthlessness seldom To achieve this, we may have recourse to the rules of statutory construction. found in a contest between strangers. Being within the purview of “engaging in war” and ‘committing serious violence’, said resort to arms, with the If a literal interpretation of any part of a statute would operate unjustly or lead resulting impairment or destruction of life and property, constitutes not two or to absorb results, or be contrary to the evident meaning of the Act taken as a more offenses, but only one crime — that of rebellion plain and simple.” whole, it should be rejected (In Re:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Allen, 2 Phil. 630, 643); chan roblesvirtualawlibrarycourts permit the elimination of a word Now that we find that what article 135 provides is not engaging in war, but and its substitution for others when it is necessary to carry out the legislative merely engaging in combat, and knowing the vast difference between war intent, where the word is found in the statute due to the inadvertence of the and mere combat, there is the possibility that some of the considerations legislature or reviser, or where it is necessary to give the act meaning, effect, and conclusions made in that majority resolution in the Hernandez case may or intelligibility, or where it is apparent from the context of the act that the be affected or enervated. In other words, our law in rebellion contemplates word is surplusage, or where the maintenance of the word, would lead to an on only armed clashes, skirmishes, ambuscade, and raids, not the whole absurdity or irrationality, or where the use of the word was a mere scale conflict of civil war like that between the Union and Confederate forces inaccuracy, or clearly apparent mishap, or where it is necessary to avoid in the American Civil War, where the rebels were given the status of inconsistencies and to make the provisions of the act harmonize belligerency under the laws of war, and consequently, were accorded much (Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Third Edition, Vol. II, pp. 458 464); chan leeway and exemption in the destruction of life and property and the violation roblesvirtualawlibraryin the construction of laws, whether constitutional or of personal liberty and security committed during the war. statutory, the court is not bound to a literal interpretation, where it would lead to an absurdity or a plain violation of the spirit and purpose of the enactment I agree with the majority opinion in the present case that if the dissidents attack or are attacked by the Government forces, and deaths are caused by the rebels, said combat, provided that the killings are of Government troops From the above articles we can gather that the Spanish legislators made the or of civilians attached to said troops, like informers, guides, etc. But when necessary and important distinction between the mere use of serious innocent civilians far from the scene of combat are murdered either because violence (violencia grave) on the Chief of State and causing his death, by they failed or refuse to sympathize or cooperate with dissidents, or because treating of the two act separately in articles 142 and 144. they are wealthy landowners, or because they failed to pay the amount of the ransom for those kidnapped by the dissidents, said killings cannot and In fine, serious violence is one thing and killing or murder is another, entirely may not be included and absorbed in the rebellion. different from each other, one certainly more serious and a graver offense than the other. If serious violence results in death, then said violence The majority says that the term “violencia grave” (grave violence) changes in aspect and becomes homicide or murder. I therefore conclude enumerated in article 135 is broad and may include the killing of civilians. that the serious violence mentioned in article 135, which I agree with the Again, I disagree. There is a vast difference between violence, even serious majority that it refers to civilians and not to members of the armed forces of violence, and murder or killing. In committing the crime of robbery, the the Government, cannot include killings of said civilians. Otherwise, where robber may use violence, even serious violence, on his victim; chan we to hold that the serious violence (violencia grave) extends to and roblesvirtualawlibrarybut if the violence results in death, the robber is held includes killings and murders, then we would be converting, though guilty not only of robbery but also homicide, or even murder, unless the two unwittingly, every rebellion into an open season for hunting as it were, crimes can be considered as a complex crime of robbery with homicide. In innocent civilians who have the misfortune of living within raiding distance other words, the violence, even serious violence, supposed to be included in from the dissident hideouts. robbery does not extend to, and include killing. The same thing may be said of the crime of coercion where force and violence is contemplated. If the The majority explains and gives reasons for the great difference between violence used does not result in death, the offender answers only for the murder on the one hand, penalized with reclusion temporal to death, and crime of coercion, but if the victim dies as a result of the violence to which he rebellion on the other, punished with mere prision mayor, due to the political was subjected, then said violence contemplated by the law does not extend purpose that impels every rebellious act and quotes Groizard, Vol. III, p. 239, to or cover the death, and the offender answer for both homicide and who discusses the great difference between the crime of, say, murder or coercion. The idea I wish to convey is that the serious violence mentioned in robbery, and the offense of rebellion; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat no one article 135 can by no means be interpreted to include killings. would care to befriend one convicted as an assassin or robber, but on the other hand would gladly, even fondly, shake the hand of one convicted of In the revised or consolidated (refundido) Penal Code of Spain of 1944, I rebellion, and that when the rebellion succeeds, the rebel not only secures have found the phrase “violencia grave” used in article 144, in connection impunity to his rebellious act, but also attains power, even the government with article 142, both under the title Delitos Contra el Jefe del Estado. I itself and the glory. I agree. It is no less true, however, that Groizard must be quote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary referring to a rebel with clean hands and a clean conscience, for it is gravely to be doubted whether one would shake the hand of a rebel dripping and ART. 142. Al quematare al Jefe del Estado se impondra la pena de stained with the blood of innocent civilians, a hand responsible for the reclusion mayor a muerte. devastation and desolation cause to those very persons and communities “Con igual pena se castigara el delito frustrado y la tentativa del mismo which the rebellion pretended to help and liberate from oppression. That is delito.” why Groizard in his next paragraph, in advocating for the reduction of the very severe penalty attached to rebellion under the Spanish Penal Code “ART. 144. Se castigara con la pena de reclusion mayor a distinguishes between simple rebellion and one in which the common crimes muerte:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary like murder, robbery, etc., and committed. I quote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary “1.° Al que privare al Jefe del Estado de su libertad personal. “Con esto queremos dar a entender que las penas fulminadas en el texto “2.° Al que con violencia o intimidacion graves le obligare a ejecutar un acto que comentamos nos parcen ante la razon y la ciencia injustificadas por su contra su voluntad. dureza. La pena de muerte, tan combatida hoy en todos terrenos, solo puede defenderse, como tipo maximo de represion, para aquellos delitos “3.° Al que le causare lesiones graves no estando comprendidas en el que revisten en todas sus circumstancias el grado mayor juridico concebible parrafo segundo del art. 142.” de criminalidad. Ahora mite maximo de la depravacion humana?” (Supplied) bien; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarypueden ser los meros delitos politicos, aun In addition to the considerations I made in my dissenting opinion in the los delitos de rebelion por graves que sean, no estando unidos con otros Hernandez case about the complex crime of rebellion with murder, delitos comunes, como robos, incendios, asesinatos, etc., etc.; chan kidnapping, etc., I wish to emphasize the fact that according to the several roblesvirtualawlibrarypueden ser, decimos, calificados, en abstractos informations filed in different Courts of First Instance, particularly the principios de justicia, como el limite maximo de la depravacion humana?” different counts contained therein and the arguments adduced by counsel (Emphasis supplied.) for the government, the murders, kidnappings, arsons, etc., committed by the rebels were so committed not just in outbursts of irresponsibility or for Then the majority makes a reference to our history of long, uninterrupted fun or for private motives but that they had an intimate relation with the rebellion against Spain. A rebellion whose purpose is to overthrow a corrupt rebellion itself; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat kidnappings and robberies and tyrannical government, redeem the people from oppression, exploitation were committed to raise funds to finance the rebellion, not only to secure and injustice, and free them from a foreign yoke is a movement deserving of food and clothing for the rebels, but also firearms and ammunitions; chan sympathy and admiration; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarybut a rebellion aimed at roblesvirtualawlibrarythat murders were committed in order to institute a overthrowing not a foreign and monarchical government but its very own, to reign of terror and panic so that the residents of the outlying barrios finding substitute it not with a democratic and republic form of government for it is themselves beyond the protection of the army, would have no choice but to already a republic, but to institute in its place a new regime under an entirely join the rebel movement or cooperate and sympathize with them were it only new and foreign ideology, godless and absolute, to be subject to the orders for purposes of survival; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat houses of innocent and control of a foreign power, such a rebellion assumes an entirely different civilians are razed to the ground either as an act of reprisal or punishment aspect, and I am afraid that for it there cannot be the sympathy, the for disobedience to orders of the rebels and to serve as an example to admiration and glory that Groizard and we have in mind. others; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat wealthy landowners and members of The majority further says that as pointed out in the Hernandez resolution, to their families were liquidated in line with the idea and doctrine that the admit the complexing of the crime of rebellion with other crimes, would result landed properties will eventually be distributed among the rebels or become in making the punishment for rebellion heavier than that of treason. That public property under the new regime. Under this aspect of the case, there claim is not entirely correct. The penalty for simple rebellion is still prision emerges the picture of the intimate and direct relation between these acts of mayor. Now, if the rebels besides committing the crime of rebellion, commit atrocity and rebellion. From the standpoint of the rebels these acts are other crimes more serious from the standpoint of the penalty, like murder or means necessary in their effort to overthrow the government and achieve kidnapping, the penalty for the complex crime necessarily must be more the goal of the rebellion. From this standpoint, I reiterate the contention that serious than that of prision mayor, but it does not mean that the penalty for the complex crime of rebellion with murder, kidnapping, robbery, etc. can rebellion has been raised to say reclusion perpetua to death because the and does exist. penalty for the complex crime of rebellion with murder is not the penalty for I also agree with the majority that the taking of public funds and equipment rebellion but the penalty for the more serious crime of murder, in its from the Provincial Treasury of Laguna under count No. 2 of the information maximum degree. Let us take the crime of estafa involving an amount not against Appellant, may be absorbed in the rebellion for the reason that it exceeding P200.00, to which the law attaches the relatively light penalty of comes within the phrase “distrayendo caudales publicos de su inversion arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. If one is convicted of legitima” (diverting of public funds from the legal purpose for which they simple estafa, he can be sentenced to only a few months. But if in have been appropriated). committing said estafa he also commits the crime of falsification of a public document, then the resulting crime is a complex one and he may be For the foregoing reasons and considerations, I hold that Defendant- sentenced to from four to six years imprisonment, a penalty which does not Appellant herein should beheld to answer for the killings under count No. 1 belong to estafa but to the more serious offense of falsification, and in its of the members of the party of Mrs. Quezon, including herself, a beloved and maximum degree. I want to make it clear that we who have dissented in the revered citizen, who had no connection whatsoever with the Government, Hernandez case have neither the desire nor intention to increase the penalty much less of its armed forces; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryfor the treacherous of rebellion. It may stand as it is, prision mayor; chan killing and cutting of the neck of Nemesei Palo under count No. 3, for the roblesvirtualawlibrarybut if other crimes like murder, robbery and kidnapping reason that he was not a member of the government forces, but a mere are committed as a means to commit rebellion, that is entirely a different policeman a local peace officer of the town of Linmanan, Camarines matter. Sur; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand for the killing of Policarpio Tipay, barrio lieutenant, under count No. 5, because he was a mere civilian official of the lowest category, expected only to help the residents of his barrio voice their perpetrate another the result is one crime. Where a crime is committed as a needs and interests before the town officials, and receiving no compensation means necessary to consummate another the result is a complex one and for this civic service. The above mentioned killing under counts 1, 3, and 5 the penalty provided for the most serious has to be imposed. Rebellion as should be complexed with rebellion and the corresponding penalty imposed. perpetrated and pursued relentlessly by the Communist is a continuing In so far as the majority fails to do this, I am constrained to dissent as I do. crime, the ultimate aim of which is to overthrow the existing governments And failing to secure a conviction for rebellion complexed with the killing of and to set up their own. To attain that end it is not enough for them to Policarpio Tipay under count 5, I concur with the majoritY in achieve partial or local success. They always look forward to and avail finding Defendant under said count 5 guilty of murder as a separate crime. themselves of every means and seize every opportunity to realize the ultimate objective. For that reason a crime committed such as murder, Endencia, J., concurs. robbery, kidnapping, arson and the like, though not indispensable for or to the commission of that of rebellion is nonetheless a means necessary to the attainment of their ultimate finality or end. To create chaos and confusion, to PADILLA, J., concurring and dissenting:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary weaken the morale of the populace, to sow terror and infuse into the mind of I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Montemayor except as to the inclusion the people panic and fear so that they would submit meekly to the of count No. 1 of the information over which the trial court (the Court of First Communist importunities, demands, imposition, rule, doctrine, political Instance of Camarines Sur) had no jurisdiction because it was committed in philosophy and policy, are but a means to an end. Viewed in that light I fail to Nueva Ecija, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, unless it is see any juridical objection or obstacle to the application of the provisions of intended as an expression of an opinion or a statement of a postulate that article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 4000. the crime of rebellion may be complexed with murder. I wish to add the As stated in the majority opinion, and without foresaking my view on the codifiers of the penal laws of Spain, as embodied in the Penal Codes of point of complexity of rebellion with murder, I agree to the penalties imposed 1870 and 1887, could not or did not foresee the development and progress upon the Defendant for two crimes upon his plea of guilty, for the reason that of the Communist movement, as mapped out in the Communist Manifesto of without my concurrence there would be no sufficient number of votes to December 1847, which aimed at world revolution and domination and turned impose the penalty for the more serious crime. more violent since 1917 after the overthrow of the Kerenski Government in Russia that succeeded the Czarist regime. The first edition of Das Kapital by Karl Marx was published in 1867. It is the first volume containing Book 1 Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary which concerns with The Process of Capitalist Production; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand although he had the essential facts or materials of 1. Chief Justice Paras, and Justices Bengson, Alex. Reyes, Bautista Volume II which was to be Book II aimed at expounding on the Process of Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes (J. B. L.) and Felix. Capitalist Circulation, and Book III intended to analyze The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole, and of Volume III to contain Book IV which 2. Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection. — How committed. The crime of was to relate a History of Theories of Surplus Value, his death on 14 March rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms 1883 prevented him from completing the work. Frederick Engels, his against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to collaborator, took over and published in May 1885 Volume II, The Process of said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part Capitalist Circulation, and in October 1894 Volume III, the Capitalist Process thereof of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or of depriving the of Production as a Whole. On 6 August 1895 Engels died and Book IV chief Executive or the Legislative, wholly or partially, of any of their powers originally planned as Volume III was not completed. These volumes and or prerogatives.” books were published by Engels after 1870, the year when the Spanish 3. i. e. engaging in combat; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarynot “engaging in Penal Code was enacted or promulgated. The turn from exposition of the war” as erroneously stated in English translation. Hence the prosecution’s defects, faults and evils of capitalism and persuasion to forsake it into violent arguments based on alleged violations of the laws of war by the accused and ruthless means to achieve its discard were not anticipated. The seem out of place. provisions of article 90 of the Penal Code of 1870 and of article 89 of the Penal Code of 1887 were due to the vision and foresight of the Spanish 4. Ante. p. 4. The four dissenting justices in the Hernandez resolution see codifiers of their penal laws. Where an indispensable crime is committed to no reason for altering their stand on the question of complexity as expressed in that case. 5. Justices Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Endencia, and Felix. 6. Chief Justice Paras and Justices Bengzon, Alex Reyes, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L.