criminal law 2 cases batch 2

8/16/2019 Criminal Law 2 Cases Batch 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/criminal-law-2-cases-batch-2 1/96

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-11870 October 16, 1961

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.ENITO CRU!, ET "L., defendants.FERMIN TOLENTINO, ENITO CRU! #$% P"TERNO CRU!, defendants-appellants.

Cipriano Manansala and Jose Lao for defendants-appellants.Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

CONCEPCION, J.:

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First nstance of Ri!al convictin"appellants Paterno Cru! and Benito Cru! of #rebellion $ith robber% $ithhomicide,# and appellant Fermin &olentino of #rebellion $ith arson, $ithmurder and robber%.# &he case is before us, the penalt% imposed uponappellants bein" life imprisonment.

'n or about November (), *+), the Provincial Fiscal of Ri!al filed $ith theCourt of First nstance of said province an information accusin" saidappellants, to"ether $ith Elpidio antan alias MarcoPolo, alias Acosta, aliasMaralva/, 0omin"o de la &orre

alias Medin", alias Espiritu/, Espiridion 1alcedo alias Lafredo/, and Amado1anche! Cru! alias Enri2ue!/ of the #comple3 crime of rebellion, $ithmultiple murder, robberies and arsons,# alle"edl% committed as follo$s4

&hat on or about Ma% (5, *+67, and for sometime prior andsubse2uent thereto and continuousl% up to the present time, in theprovince of Ri!al, Philippines, and $ithin the 8urisdiction of this9onorable Court and in other municipalities, cities and provincesand other parts of the countr% $here the% have chosen to carr% outtheir rebellious activities, the said accused, bein" then ran:in"officers and;or members of, or other$ise affiliated $ith theCommunist Part% of the Philippines and the #9u:bon"

Mapa"pala%a N" Ba%an 9MB/# other$ise :no$n as the9u:balahap 9<=/, the latter bein" the armed force of saidCommunist Part%, havin" come to an a"reement and havin"decided to commit the crime of rebellion, and, thereb% conspirin"and confederatin" amon" themselves to"ether $ith all of the )*accused in Criminal Cases Nos. *6>?*, *6>5(, *6(?>, *6)* and*6)66 Politburo Cases/ in the Court of First nstance of Manila,$ith other members, officers and;or affiliates of the CommunistPart% of the Philippines and the #9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a N" Ba%an9MB/# or 9<=1 and man% others $hose identities and$hereabouts are still un:no$n, actin" in accordance $ith theirconspirac% and in the furtherance thereof, and mutuall% helpin" oneanother, did then and there $illfull%, unla$full% and feloniousl% help,support, promote, direct and;or command the #9u:bon"Mapa"pala%a N" Ba%an 9MB/# or the 9u:balahap 9<=/ to risepublicl% and ta:e up arms a"ainst the overnment of the Republicof the Philippines, or other$ise participate in such public uprisin"for the purpose of removin" from the alle"iance to the said

"overnment and la$s thereof, the territor% of the Philippines orportion thereof, as in fact the said #9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a N"Ba%an 9MB/# or the 9<=1, pursuant to such conspirac%, haverisen publicl% and ta:en up arms a"ainst the overnment of theRepublic of the Philippines to attain said purpose b% then and therema:in" armed raids, sorties, ambushes and attac:s a"ainst thePhilippine Constabular%, the Civilian uards, the Police and Arm%patrols and other detachments constituted and or"ani!ed b% the"overnment of the Philippines, as $ell as upon ordinar% civilians,and as a necessar% means to commit the crime of Rebellion inconnection there$ith and in the furtherance thereof, have the andthere committed $anton acts of murders, pilla"es, lootin"s,plunders, arsons and planned destructions of private and public

properties to create and spread disorders, terrors, confusions,chaos and fear amon" the population and b% the use of force andintimidation, or"ani!ed different barrio or"ani!ations to securesupplies and materials for the support and maintenance of saiduprisin"s, to $it4

&hat on or about March (>, *+*, at about 54)> o@cloc: in theevenin", in the municipalit% of Antipolo, province of Ri!al, the hereinaccused BEN&' CR<, leadin" some armed members of the#9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a N" Ba%an#, includin" the accused herein



PA&ERN' CR<, $ith intent of "ain and for the purpose ofprocurin" supplies for their or"ani!ation, entered the residence of'9N 0. 9AR0E, and $ith violence and intimidation upon the said'9N 0. 9AR0E, too: and carried a$a% therefrom personalproperties of material values consistin" of a t%pe$riter, a radio,several pieces of 8e$elr%, boo:s, clothin"s and other articles

belon"in" to the latter amountin" to Five &housand PesosP,>>>.>>/, more or less, and that before leavin" the premises, thesaid BEN&' CR< and PA&ERN' CR<, cooperatin" $ith oneanother and $ith the other members of the #9u:bon" Mapa"pala%aN" Ba%an# present thereat, tied the hands of '9N 0. 9AR0E and0'NA0 CAP<AN' and thereafter shot them to death to"ether$ith RENE D. 9AR0E.

&hat on March (*, *+*, in the municipalit% of Pililla, province ofRi!al, some ?> armed members of FC )( of the #9u:bon"Mapa"pala%a N" Ba%an# led b% Comdr. R'BER&, fou"ht themembers of Co #0# of the *6th BC&, Armed Forces of thePhilippines under Capt. Conrado Caba"ue.

&hat on or about April (*, *+*, in the municipalit% of Moron,province of Bataan, the accused FERMN &'EN&N', as theCommandin" 'fficer of FC ( of the @9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a N"Ba%an@, leadin" some ?> armed members of the said or"ani!ation,attac:ed, fired at and en"a"ed into a fi"ht the officers and men of adetachment of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, resultin" to thedeaths and in8uries of some of the said officers and;or men, and

that durin" the same %ear, in the municipalit% of 9ermosa, sameprovince, the said accused FERMN &'EN&N', $ith a "roup ofarmed 9u:s, attac:ed and en"a"ed into a f i"ht the officers andmen of another detachment of the Armed Forces of the Philippinesthereat.

&hat on or about November *, *+(, in the municipalit% of 1anMateo, province of Ri!al, the accused 0'MN' 0EA &'RREand about *( other armed men, all members of FC 67, REC' 6,of the #9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a N" Ba%an#, in support of and;or in

furtherance of the movement of the said or"ani!ation to overthro$the established "overnment of the Republic of the Philippines, $hilesolicitin" food from civilians thereat, fou"ht elements of the ?thBC&, Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Civilian Commando<nit of Montalban, Ri!al.

&hat on or about April , *+*, elements of the Armed Forces of thePhilippines had an encounter $ith about fift% >/ armed 9u:sunder commander 1ilan" at 1itio Malaba%as, 1ampaloc, &ana%,Ri!al, resultin" in the death of one */ 9u:, (/ EM and $oundin" of another enlisted man.

&hat on or about 0ecember **, *+*, elements of the ArmedForces of the Philippines had an encounter $ith about fourteen *6/

armed 9u:s under Commander Aladdin at 1itio =aulano", &ana%,Ri!al, resultin" in the $oundin" of one */ enlisted man.

&hat on or about April (5, *+6+, at :ilometer 7( at 1alubsob, in themunicipalit% of Bon"abon", in the province of Nueva Eci8a, anundetermined number of 9MBs 8ointl% led b% Commanders iernes,Mar!an, upo and Mulon", treacherousl% ambushed, assaulted,attac:ed and fired upon the part% of Mrs. Aurora A. Gue!on and her PC escort, $hom the% considered as their enemies, resultin" in thedeath of Mrs. Aurora A. Gue!on, Bab% Gue!on, Ma%or Bernardo ofGue!on Cit%, Ma8. P. 1an A"ustin, t. asam, Philip Buencamino and several soldiers, and in8uries to eneral alandoni and Capt.Manalan".

&hat on or about Au"ust (, *+>, in the municipalit% of &arlac, inthe province of &arlac, an undetermined number of armed 9MBs,raided, assaulted and attac:ed Camp Ma:abulos and set fire on thebuildin" and installations therein :illin" Ma8. E. 0. 'rlino, Capt. E.0. Cru!, ts. Manacias, N. C. &an, Eusebio Cabute, and severalenlisted men, includin" Rosario 1otto, a Red Cross Nurse.



raid of 'rani, Bataan, on anuar% , *+6+, b% the 9u:s, &olentino $as one of the officers $ho ordered the burnin" of houses thereinK and that saidappellant too: part, also, in the 9u: attac: at Camp Ma:abulos, &arlac, in Au"ust, *+>.

1imilarl%, Pablo uinto, another former 9u:, $hose $ife is &olentino@s aunt,testified that he uinto/ formed part of the band of 9u:s led b% &olentinothat attac:ed Culis, 9ermosa, Bataan, on anuar% **, *+*K that a store $aslooted on that occasionK that a Chinese $as then shot and :illed b%&olentinoK that he uinto/ $as li:e$ise $ith the "roup of 9u:s, under thecommand of &olentino, that raided 'rani sometime in *+65 or *+6+, Moron",Ri!al, on April (*, *+*, and 9ermosa, Bataan on 0ecember (, *+*K andthat &olentino $as the person responsible for the :illin" of one aleriano andhis son in the raid of 9ermosa.

A"ain, Capt. ulio 0ima"iba, commander of the detachment stationed at0inalupihan, Bataan, in Au"ust, *+6+, related ho$ he recovered the deadbodies of Baldomero 1imbulan, Antonio Cru! and an unidentifiedhunchbac:, $ho $ere victims of the 9u: attac: in said municipalit% on Au"ust (), *+6+, and found each corpse $ith a ta" readin" #A:o an"pumata%, Commander CaviteLo,# the alias of appellant &olentino, $ho $asapprehended at an arm% chec: point in race Par:, Caloocan, Ri!al, onMa% (?, *+). 9e then had a "unshot $ound on the breast, and tried, atfirst, to hide his identit% b% "ivin" a name different from his. <poninvesti"ation, he later confessed to havin" been a 9u: and made thestatements E3hibits BB, CC, 99, and , in $hich he admitted havin"been the Commandin" 'fficer of FC-( and bein" :no$n as CommanderCaviteLo. Dhile under detention, in connection $ith this case, he escaped,but $as recaptured some$here in Pampan"a.

0urin" the trial, he testified that members of the arm% had maltreated himand then forced him to si"n several statements. Besides, he denied the

inscription found in the ta"s aforementioned, as $ell as havin" assumed the#alias Commander CaviteLo# or havin" been $ith an% raidin" part% of the9MB. auro 0avid and Remi"io 1oliman $ere, also, placed on the $itnessstand b% appellant &olentino, to corroborate the latter part of his testimon%.

Commentin" thereon, the lo$er court had the follo$in" to sa%4

&he denial and e3planation proffered b% the accused and his$itnesses cannot prevail over the clear and positive testimon% ofthe 1tate $itnesses re"ardin" his role in the several raids sta"ed b%the 9<=s in the province of Bataan, but more particularl% in the

Ma:abulos massacre. 'n top of all these, the record is replete $ithat least ei"ht confessions made b% the accused Fermin &olentinoon separate occasions. n E3hibit #BB# ta:en b% Sgt. Rejualos onMa% (?, *+) and interpreted b% Sgt. Quiambao the accuseddeclared that he 8oined the 9MB as a private, then promoted tos2uad leader and later to staff officer, -) until he became

commander of FC No. (, Reco ( from 'ctober, *+( to 0ecember of the same %earK that he $as armed $ith a revolver, caliber )5Kthat his men $ere armed $ith thirt% arands and automaticcarbines. &hree da%s later, he "ave another statement E3hibit #>>#before !tt". Jose de la #uente$herein he e3plained ho$ his unitoperated in ambushin" the enem%K that durin" his membership, FCNo. ( had an encounter at Moron, Bataan in *+> and at Pa8obet$een ambales and Bataan in *+*K that FC No. ( had *>>men or *( s2uads $ith Bataan as the area of operation. 'n une ),*+) the accused "ave another statement, E3hibit #PP#, $hereinhe admitted havin" 8oined the 9MB as member in *+67 at ubao,Pampan"aK that his reason for 8oinin" $as his dis"ust at his father@srefusal to allo$ him to "o to places li:e ManilaK that he be"an his

career under Commander Ale3ander of FC No. *5 converted intoFC No. (/. 'n ul% *6, *+), he "ave another statement, E3hibit#99#, before Lt. $sto%ue and interpreted b% Ro%ue Lapu& $hereinhe recounted offices held, the encounters mentioned in E3hibits#BB# and #''# and added that in *+>, he studied t$o months inReco ( under inda Bie as instructorK that he $as -) of FC No. (from ul%, *+* to Au"ust, *+(. 9e reiterated his previousstatements in another confession on Au"ust *5, *+), E3hibit ##.

De are full% in accord $ith this vie$. Needless to sa%, apart from his baretestimon%, appellant &olentino has not introduced an% evidence on hisalle"ed maltreatment b% a"ents of the la$, aside from the fact that the sameis refuted b% the e3culpator% details contained in his aforementionedstatements.

As stated in the brief for the overnment, appellants herein are "uilt% ofsimple rebellion People vs. Nava, -+65), anuar% )>, *+7>K People vs.9ernande!, ( 'ff. a!., 67*(/, inasmuch as the information alle"es, andthe records sho$ that the acts imputed to them $ere performed as a meansto commit the crime of rebellion and in furtherance thereof, althou"h as 9u:Commanders, appellants Benito Cru! and Fermin &olentino fall under thefirst para"raph of Article *) of the Revised Penal Code, $hich prescribesthe penalt% of prision ma"or and a fine not e3ceedin" P(>,>>>, $hereasappellant Paterno Cru! comes under the second para"raph of said article,$hich prescribes the penalt% of prision ma"or in its minimum period.



Accordin"l%, the penalt% meted out to appellants Benito Cru! and Fermin&olentino should be reduced to ten *>/ %ears of prision ma"or $ith theaccessor% penalties prescribed b% la$, and to pa% each a fine of P*>,>>>,and appellant Paterno Cru! should be sentenced to si3 7/ %ears, ei"ht 5/months and one */ da% of prision ma"or $ith the accessor% penaltiesprescribed b% la$.

&hus modified as to the desi"nation of the crime committed and thepenalties, the decision appealed from is hereb% affirmed in all otherrespects, $ith the proportionate part of the costs a"ainst said appellants. t isso ordered.

'eng&on C.J. 'autista !ngelo Labrador Re"es J.'.L. (aredes and )eLeon JJ. concur.

Se&#r#te O&'$'o$(

P")ILL", J., dissentin".

dissent on the point of la$ onl% for the reasons stated in m% concurrin" anddissentin" opinion in the case of (eople *s. Geronimo ) 'ff. a!., 75, +(.




Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-*97* M#+ 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.OSE L"", ET "L., defendants-appellees.

-----------------------------

G.R. No. L-*97 M#+ 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.L"MERTO M"GOO, ET "L., defendants-appellants.

-----------------------------

G.R. No. L-*976 M#+ 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.SIMEON G. RO)RIGUE!, ET "L., defendants-appellees.

-----------------------------

G.R. No. L-*977 M#+ 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.HONOFRE M"NGIL", ET "L., defendants-appellants.

-----------------------------

G.R. No. L-*978 M#+ 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.M"GNO PONTILLER" UENO, ET "L., defendants-appellees.

Office of the !ssistant Solicitor General (acifico (. de Castro and SolicitorJorge Co%uia for plaintiff-appellee.Recto La+ Office Juan ,. )a*id Crispin ). 'ai&as and )elgado #loresMacapagal and )i&on for defendant-appellant Jose La*a.Cipriano C. Manansala for defendants-appellants #ederico MaclangLamberto Magboo onofre ). Magila Marcos Medina Cenon 'unga" andMagno (. 'ueno.R. M. (aterno for defendants-appellants Marciano de Leon and Cesareo,orres.rineo M. Cabrera for defendant-appellant luminada Calonje.Salonga Ordo/e& and !ssociates for defendants-appellants !ngel 'a0ingand !rturo 'a0ing.Jose (. Laurel La+ Office for defendant-appellant Simeon Rodrigue&.

J. !ntonio !raneta Claudio ,eehan0ee and Manuel O. Chan for defendant-appellant #ederico 'autista.smael ,. ,orres for defendant-appellant #elipe $ngreso.Meliton Soliman for defendant-appellant 1icanor Ra&on Sr.

!"L)I"R, J.:

&hese are appeals from the 8oint decision of the Court of First nstanceof Manila in i ts Criminal Cases Nos. *6>?*, *6>5(, *6(?>, *6)* and*6)66.

n Criminal Case No. *6>?*, the defendants $ere ose ava, FedericoBautista, Federico Maclan", Ramon Espiritu, 1alome Cru! % Adriano,Rosario C. viuda de 1antos and An"el Ba:in". &he appeal from the decisionin this case is no$ in .R. No. -6+?6 before this Court.

n Criminal Case No. *6>5(, the defendants $ere amberto Ma"boo,Nicanor Ra!on, 1r., Esteban on!ales % la &orre, Marcos Medina, Cesario&orres, Rosenda Canlas Re%es, and Arturo Ba:in" % Calma. &he appealfrom the decision in this case is no$ in .R. No. -6+? before this Court.



n Criminal Case No. *6(?>, the defendants $ere 1imeon utierre! %Rodri"ue!, ulita Rodri"ue! % utierre!, and ictorina Rodri"ue! %utierre!, and Marciano de eon. &he appeal from the decision in this caseis no$ in .R. No. -6+?7 before this Court.

n Criminal Case No. *6)*, the defendants $ere 9onofre 0. Man"ilaand Cenon Bun"a% % Ba"tas. &he appeal from the decision in this case isno$ in .R. No. -6+?? before this Court.

n Criminal Case No. *6)66 the defendants $ere Ma"no PontilleraBueno, Nicanor Capalad, Rosalina Gui!on, Pedro icencio, ulia Mesina,Felipe En"reso, Elpidio AcuLo Adime, osefina Adelan % Abuse8o, Conrado0omin"o, Aurora arcia, and Nat% Cru!. &he appeal from the decision inthis case is no$ in .R. No. -6+?5 before this Court.

All the above-named defendants $ere char"ed $ith havin" committedthe comple3 crime of rebellion $ith murders and arsons under an identicalinformation, filed in each of the five cases, $hich reads as follo$s4 .

&hat on or about the 7th da% of Ma%, *+67, and for sometime prior andsubse2uent thereto and continuousl% up to the present time, in the Ci t% ofManila, the seat of the overnment of the Republic of the Philippines $hichthe herein accused have intended to overthro$, and the place the% havechosen for that purpose as the nerve center of all their rebellious activities inthe different parts of the countr%, the said accused bein" then hi"h ran:in"officers or other$ise members of the Communist Part% of the PhilippinesP=P/ of $hich the #9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a n" Ba%an# 9MB/ other$ise orformerl% :no$n as the 9u:balahap 9u:s/, is its armed forces, havin" cometo an a"reement and decided to commit the crime of rebellion, and therefore,conspirin" and confederatin" to"ether, actin" $ith man% more others $hose$hereabouts and identities are still un:no$n up to the filin" of thisinformation, and helpin" one another, did then and there $illfull%, unla$full%,and feloniousl% promote, maintain, cause, direct and;or command the9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a n" Ba%an 9MB/ or the 9u:balahaps 9u:s/ to risepublicl% and ta:e arms a"ainst the overnment or other$ise participatetherein for the purpose of overthro$in" the same, as in fact the said9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a n" Ba%an or 9u:balahaps 9u:s/ have risen publicl%and ta:en arms a"ainst the overnment, b% then and there ma:in" armedraids, sorties and ambushes, attac:s a"ainst police, constabular% and arm%detachments, and as a necessar% means to commit the crime of rebellion, inconnection there$ith and in furtherance thereof, b% then and therecommittin" $anton acts of murder, spoila"e, lootin", arson, planneddestruction of private and public buildin"s, to create and spread terrorism in

order to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, as follo$s, to$it4

*/ 'n Ma% 7, *+67, the *>th MPC Co. led b% First t. Mamertooren!o $hile on patrol dut% in the barrio of 1anta Monica, Alia"a,Nueva Eci8a, $as $ith evident premeditation on the part of the hu:sambushed and treacherousl% attac:ed b% a band of $ell-armeddissidents or rebels. &en enlisted men of the MP compan% $ere:illed. First t. Mamerto oren!o $as captured and beheaded b%the rebels.

(/ 'n Au"ust 7, *+67, a "roup of more than )> 9u:s under theleadership of 1alvador Nolasco armed $ith "uns of differentcalibers raided the municipal buildin" of Ma8a%8a%, a"una. &he%$ere able to "et one arand, one carbine, one &hompson M,and one pistol. &he% also too: one t%pe$riter and stationer% NRa"una, dated 1ept. (, *+67/.

)/ 'n April *>, *+6?, *6 EM under the command of t. Pablo C.Cru!, $hile on their $a% to investi"ate a holdup in the barrio of 1anMi"uel na Munti, &alavera, Nueva Eci8a $ere $ith evidentpremeditation and treacher% on the part of the 9u:s ambushed andfired upon b% 9u:s armed $ith )>-caliber rifles, machine "uns, and"renades. t. Pablo Cru! and Pvt. 1antia"o Mercado $ere :illedand 7 others $ere $ounded.

6/ 'n Ma% +, *+6?, 9u:s numberin" around *>> under ombo%and i$a%$a% raided the to$n proper of aur and forced Municipal&reasurer ose A. iloria to open the treasur% safe and obtainedtherefrom more than P7>>. Policeman Fermin 1anche! $as ta:enb% the bandits $ith one 1prin"field rifle. Bandits robbed the to$nspeople of their mone%, personal belon"in"s, rice and carabaosD&R Ma% *>, *+6?/. .

/ 'n Au"ust *+, *+6?, Capt. ose amboa, First t. Celestino&iansec, and 1econd t. Marciano isin", all from the **th Co.,$hile ridin" in a 8eep follo$in" an armored car, $ere t reacherousl%fired upon b% a "roup of about *>> dissidents armed $ith automaticrifles, &hompsons, and arands and lined up on both sides of9i"h$a% No. near the cemeter% of 1an Mi"uel, Bulacan. First t.Celestino &iansec and 1econd t. Marciano isin" $ere :illed.



7/ n or about the month of une, *+67, Ale8andro iernes, alias1talin, commander of oint Forces No. *>5 $ith about *5> men,entered the to$n of Pantaban"an, Nueva Eci8a, and raised their9u: fla" for more than t$ent%-four hours. &he Municipal officials didnot offer an% resistance because of the superiorit% in number of the9u:s. After demandin" from the civilians foodstuffs such as rice,

chic:ens, "oats, and carabaos, the% left the to$n, admonishin" thecivilians al$a%s to support the 9u: or"ani!ation. &he MP forcesunder Capt. Ponciano 9anili, 1-), Capt. Federico C. 'lares, then Asst. 1-), of Nueva Eci8a province, proceeded to Pantaban"an $ithforces of the **(th MP Co. under Capt. Nicanor arcia, to verif% theinformation, but $ere not able to contact the dissidents atPantaban"an. &he% proceeded to the barrio of Mari:it, bet$eenPantaban"an and aur, $here the% en"a"ed some dissidents.Dhen our forces $ere on their $a% home, the% $ere poc:eted b%the dissidents at the !i"!a" road, but o$in" to the initiative of ourforces, the% $ere able to e3tricate themselves from their precariousposition and $ere able to fire their mortars and Cal. > and .)>machine"uns. nvesti"ations made on the field of battle sho$edthat the 9u:s suffered heav% casualties $hich $as verified later tohave been seven cart loads of dead men. 1pecial Report, PCNueva Eci8a, dated Februar% (), *+65./

?/ Mrs. Aurora Ara"on Gue!on and part% $ere $ith evidentpremeditation and treacher% on the part of the 9u:s ambushed atabout *>4)>, (5 April 6+ b% an undetermined number of dissidentsunder Commanders iernes, Mar!an, upo and Mulon" at:ilometer 7(, barrio 1alubsob, Bon"abon", Nueva Eci8a. PC escorte3chan"ed fire $ith the dissidents. Patrol of the First 9eav%Deapons Compan%, *st PC Battalion $as dispatched to reinforcethe PC escort. &he follo$in" persons $ere :illed4 Mrs. Gue!on,Bab% Gue!on, Ma%or P. Bernardo, Ma8or P. 1an A"ustin, A. 1an A"ustin, t. asam, Philip Buencamino , and several soldiers.eneral alandoni and Capt. Manalan" sustained sli"ht $ounds.

5/ 'n Au"ust (, *+>, Camp Macabulos, &arlac, &arlac $asattac:ed, raided and set fire to and amon" the casualties therein$ere Ma8or 0. E. 'rlino, Capt. &. 0. Cru!, t. . &. Mana$is, t. C.N. &an, t. Eusebio Cabute, 1"t. sabelo ar"as, 1"t. BernardoCado%, 1"t. Bienvenido Bu"a%, 1"t. 1amuel ope!, Cpl. icente A$itan, Cpl. Rui! Ponce, Cpl. Eu"enio Ruelra, Pvt. A"ustinBalatbat, 1aturnino uarin, E. Cabanban, Antonio Monte, Feli3Guirin, re"oria Balcoco, ose Mo8ica, Cornelio Mele"an, CarlosBo8ade, Rodri"o Espe8o and Rosario 1otto, a Red Cross nurse.

Counsel for defendants ose ava and Federico Bautista filed amotion to 2uash the information a"ainst them upon the "rounds that theinformation did not conform to the prescribed form, that it char"ed thedefendants $ith more than one offense, and that the court had no 8urisdictionover the offense char"ed. Also filed $as a petition for provisional libert%under bail of *6 of the defendants, upon the "rounds that */ the evidence of

"uilt $as not stron" and (/ the suspension of the $rit of habeas corpusunder Proclamation No. (*>, dated 'ctober ((, *+>, b% the President ofthe Philippines $as unconstitutional. Both motion and petition $ere deniedb% the trial court in an order dated November *, *+>.

<pon a"reement of the prosecution and the defense, and $ith theconformit% of all the defendants, the five cases $ere tried 8ointl%, $ith theunderstandin" that each defendant could present his;her separate andindependent defenses. Not$ithstandin" the fact that several $itnesses hadalread% testified in the first t$o cases Criminal Cases Nos. *6>?* and*6>5(/ at the time the other three cases Criminal Cases Nos. *6(?>, *6)*and *6)66/ $ere filed, the defendants in the latter three cases e3pressedtheir conformit% to a 8oint trial $ith the first t$o cases and a"reed that the

evidence alread% ta:en in the first t$o cases be reproduced in the latterthree cases.

Dhile the 8oint trial $as bein" held, the prosecution, after areinvesti"ation of the cases, moved that the case $ith respect to defendantulia Mesina be dismissed upon the "round of insufficienc% of evidence. After the trial and before the cases $ere submitted for decision, theprosecution also moved for the dismissal of the case a"ainst defendantRosenda Canlas Re%es upon the "round that the evidence on record $asnot sufficient to support her conviction. Both motions $ere "ranted b% thetrial court.

After the 8oint trial, the trial court rendered a 8oint decision in the five

cases, dated Ma% **, *+*.

n Criminal Case No. *6>?*, the court found defendants FE0ERC'MACAN alias Eto alias '. Beria alias'libas alias MarianoCru! alias Ambrosio Re%es alias Manuel 1antosK RAM'NE1PR&< alias ohnn% alias =a ohnn%K <MNA0ACA'NE alias 1alome Cru! alias umin"K '1EAA alias 9arr% alias Feli3 Cru! aliasaston1ila%an alias aston alias re"orio 1anta%ana alias re" alias avinoKFE0ERC' M. BA<&1&A aliasFreddie alias FredK ANEBA=N alias An"el alias Bori! alias Ba%anK and R'1AR' 0A. 0E



1AN&'1 aliasCharin", "uilt% as principals of the comple3 crime of rebellion$ith multiple murder, arsons, and robberies, and pursuant to Article (65,subsections * and ) of the Revised Penal Code, in connection $ith its Article65, sentenced defendants Federico Maclan", Ramon Espiritu and luminadaCalon8e to the capital penalt% of deathK and defendants ose ava, FedericoM. Bautista, An"el Ba:in", and Rosario C. da de 1antos to reclusion

perpetua. &he defendants $ere also ordered to pa% the costs in this case.

n imposin" the death penalt% upon Federico Maclan", Ramon Espirituand luminada Calon8e, the court too: into consideration not onl% the ver%nature of the crime committed but also the a""ravatin" circumstance that thesaid three defendants secured the aid of persons under * %ears of a"e inthe commission of the crime.

n Criminal Case No. *6>5(, the court found defendants CE1ARE'&'RRE1 alias Cesareo Jacat, alias eoalias eodonesK AR&<R' BA=NJ CAMA alias Arturo C. Ba:in" alias A. C. Ba:in" alias Arturo CalmaBa:in"alias Eduardo 1antos, and MARC'1 ME0NA alias 9i$ara "uilt% asprincipals of the comple3 crime of rebellion $ith multiple murder, arsons, and

robberies and sentenced the said defendants to reclusion perpetua. &hecourt also found defendants AMBER&' MAB'' alias Bertin" alias Eddieand NCAN'R RA'N, 1R., alias Elias Ruvi, as accomplice in thecommission of the said crime and $ere sentenced to an indeterminateprison term of ten *>/ %ears of prision ma"or as minimum to seventeen *?/%ears of reclusion temporal as ma3imum.

&he court did not find sufficient evidence to establish the "uilt of thedefendant E1&EBAN 'NAE1 J A &'RRE, alias Esteban a &orreon!ales, either as principal or accomplice in the commission of the saidcrime. &he court, ho$ever, found him "uilt% as member of the CommunistPart% in the Philippines, $hich is an ille"al association, and pursuant to Article *6? of the Revised Penal Code, the said defendant $as sentenced to

four 6/ months of arresto ma"or . All the defendants $ere ordered to pa%costs.

n Criminal Case No. *6(?>, the court found defendants 1ME'N<&ERRE J R'0R<E alias 1imeon Rodri"ue! alias 1amm% alias 1.. R. alias a:indanumK MARClAN' 0E E'N J E1PR&< alias MarcianoE. de eon alias Marcial alias Mar, "uilt% as principals in the commission ofthe comple3 crime of rebellion $ith multiple murder, arsons, and robberiesKand <&A R'0R<E J<&ERRE alias udith alias ulin" alias uliet aliasulie, as accomplice inthe commission of the said crime, and sentenced defendants 1imeon

utierre! % Rodri"ue!, and Marciano de eon % Espiritu to reclusionperpetuaK and defendant ulita Rodri"ue! % utierre! to an indeterminateprison term of ten *>/ %ears of prision ma%or as minimum to seventeen *?/%ears of reclusion temporal as ma3imum. &hese defendants $ere ordered topa% the costs.

&he court ac2uitted defendant C&'RNA R'0R<E J<&ERRE alias ic:% alias &orin".

n Criminal Case No. *6)*, the court found defendants CEN'NB<NAJ J BA&A1 alias Rupin" aliasCommander Rupin" alias Ba"tasand 9'N'FRE 0. MANA alias 'nofre Man"ila alias &omm% alias Miller"uilt% as principals of the comple3 crime of rebellion $ith multiple murder,arsons and robberies, and pursuant to the provision of Article 65 of theRevised Penal Code the said defendant Cenon Bun"a% % Ba"tas and9onofre 0. Man"ila $ere sentenced to death. n arrivin" at this decision thecourt too: into consideration the "ravit% of their participation in the saidcomple3 crime, the first bein" a 9u: s2uadron commander, $ho led and too:part in several raids and ambuscades conducted b% the 9MB and caused

the :illin" of Ma8or eopoldo Alicbusan of the PC 0etachment at 1an PabloCit%, a"una, and the second Man"ila/ bein" a member of the po$erfulCentral Committee of the Communist Part% in the Philippines, $hich electsthe Politburo members. &he said defendants $ere also ordered to pa% thecosts.

n Criminal Case No. *6)66, the court found defendant MAN'P'N&ERA B<EN' alias Ma"no Buenoalias MamertoBan%a"a alias Nardin", "uilt% as principal of the comple3 crime of rebellion$ith multiple murder, arsons, and robberies and sentenced the saiddefendant to death. &he court, li:e$ise found defendants R'1ANA .G<'N alias Re"ina GuiambaoK PE0R' CENC' alias Pedrin"K FEPEENRE1' alias peK '1EFN' A0EAN J AB<1E' alias Fel%K EP0'

AC<' A0ME alias Roll%, alias Roll% Enri2ue! alias Rol aliasPidion", andNA&J CR< alias Natie alias Nat% alias 1prin", and C'NRA0'0'MN' alias Adon" "uilt% be%ond reasonable doubt as accomplices inthe commission of the said crime and sentenced the said Rosalina Gui!onand Pedro icencio to an indeterminate penalt% of ten *>/ %ears of prisionma"or as minimum to seventeen *?/ %ears of reclusion temporal asma3imumK and Felipe En"reso, osefina Adelan and Conrado 0omin"o toan indeterminate prison term of four 6/ %ears of prision correccional asminimum to ten *>/ %ears of prision ma"or as ma3imum. &he last threeaccused $ere declared entitled to the privile"ed miti"atin" circumstance ofminorit%, the% bein" under *5 %ears of a"e.



Dith respect to defendants Elpidio AcuLo Adime and Nat% Cru!, the%bein" under *7 %ears of a"e, further proceedin"s $ere suspended andpursuant to the provision of Article 5> of the Revised Penal Code, the courtordered that the said Elpidio AcuLo Adime be committed to the Bo%s@&rainin" 1chool and Nat% Cru! to the irls@ &rainin" 1chool at Mandalu%on",Ri!al under the custod% and supervision of the Commissioner of 1ocial

Delfare or his authori!ed representatives until the% reach the a"e of ma8orit%or until further orders of the court. &he Commissioner of 1ocial Delfare $asdirected to submit to the court ever% four months a $ritten report on the "oodor bad conduct of the said minors, on the moral and intellectual pro"ressmade b% them durin" the period of their confinement in said institutions.

&he court ac2uitted defendants NCAN'R CAPAA0 alias Canor and A<R'RA ARCA alias arin".

All the defendants e3cept Nicanor Capalad and Aurora arcia $ereordered to pa% the costs.

n imposin" the capital penalt% on Ma"no Pontillera Bueno the Courttoo: into account not onl% his bein" a member of the po$erful CentralCommittee of the Communist Part% 8ointl% $ith Federico Maclan" and9onofre Man"ila but also his bein" an instructor on Militar% &actics in the#1talin <niversit%#, the militar% trainin" school for 9u:s in the mountains.

&he ri"hts to file a civil action to recover indemnit% for the death of thevictims of the murders specificall% referred to in these cases $ere reservedto the heirs of the said victims.

&hus, of the ori"inal )* defendants in these five criminal cases, five$ere ac2uitted, namel%4 ulia Mesina, Rosenda Canlas Re%es, ictorinaRodri"ue! % utierre!, Nicanor Capalad and Aurora arcia. 'f the (7 $ho

$ere convicted, all appealed to this Court e3cept defendant Estebanon!ales la &orre. ater, defendants Rosalina Gui!on, Elpidio AcuLo Adime,osefina Adelan Abuse8o, Conrado 0omin"o and Nat% Cru! $ithdre$ theirappeal. 0urin" the pendenc% of the appeal, defendants ulita Rodri"ue! %utierre! and Ma"no Pontillera Bueno died. &he appeals no$ before thisCourt, therefore, involve onl% *5 defendants, namel%4 ose ava, FedericoBautista, Federico Maclan", Ramon Espiritu, 1alome Cru!, Rosario da. de1antos, An"el Ba:in", amberto Ma"boo, Nicanor Ra!on, Marcos Medina,Cesareo &orres, Arturo Ba:in", 1imeon . Rodri"ue!, Marciano de eon,9onofre Man"ila, Cenon Bun"a%, Pedro icencio, and Felipe En"reso.

<pon petition b% the 0eput% Chief, Militar% ntelli"ence 1ervice M1/of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, this Court, b% order of March ?,*+(, appointed the M1 the custodian of the e3hibits and documents that$ere presented as evidence in these five criminal cases before the trialcourt. &his step $as ta:en because those documents and e3hibits $ereneeded also as evidence in other courts in the prosecution of other members

of the 9MB 9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a n" Ba%an/. ater, b% order of April *6,*+, this Court appointed the 1taff ud"e Advocate of the PhilippineConstabular% the custodian of the same documents and e3hibits. &hosedocuments and e3hibits $ere :ept at the head2uarters of the PhilippineConstabular% at Camp Crame, Gue!on Cit%. 'n 1eptember *>, *+5 thehead2uarters of the PC $as destro%ed b% fire, and all those documents ande3hibits $ere burned. <pon a petition for the reconstitution of the saiddocuments and e3hibits, this Court appointed 0eput% Cler: of CourtBienvenido E8ercito as Commissioner to receive evidence for thereconstitution of those documents and e3hibits. &he Commissioner, after duehearin", submitted his report, dated 'ctober 7, *++, recommendin" that thedocuments and e3hibits that $ere burned be declared reconstituted b% thephotostatic copies of the ori"inals of those documents and e3hibits. &heCommissioner stated in his report that those photostatic copies $ere dul%identified durin" the hearin"s on the reconstitution. 'ver the ob8ection ofcounsels for the defendants-appellants, this Court approved the report of theCommissioner.

Counsels for the appellants $ere allo$ed b% the Court all the time thatthe% needed to prepare the briefs for the appellants. &he last brief for theappellants $as filed on anuar% ((, *+7). &he 1olicitor eneral filed thebrief for the appellee People of the Philippines/ on une (+, *+7). &heseappeals $ere set for hearin" on oral ar"ument on Au"ust (5, *+7). 'n thatdate counsel for some of the defendants-appellants ar"ued the case for their clientsK and counsels for other defendants-appellants $ere "iven a period of(> da%s to submit a memorandum in lieu of oral ar"ument. &he 1olicitoreneral $as li:e$ise "ranted leave to submit a repl% memorandum $ithin(> da%s from the receipt of the copies of the appellants@ memoranda. <ponthe filin" of the memoranda these cases $ere considered submitted fordecision.

&hese cases have been pendin" for decision in this Court since'ctober, *+7), and it $ould seem that this Court has not acted $ith dispatchin the disposition of these cases. t must be :no$n, ho$ever, that this Courthas been s$amped $ith cases appealed from the lo$er courts and fromadministrative bodies and officials, as provided b% la$, and despite thearduous labors b% the members of this Court the doc:et of this Court hasbeen, and still is, clo""ed. &here are numerous criminal cases appealed to



this Court ahead of these five cases. Certainl% the appellants in those earlier appealed criminal cases deserve the same concern from this Court that theappellants in these five cases e3pect for themselves. &he record of thesefive cases, consistin" of the #rollos#, the transcript of the steno"raphic notesta:en durin" the trial and the documentar% e3hibits, is so voluminous that$hen piled verticall% it $ould stand almost three feet hi"h. &he record has to

be meticulousl% e3amined and studied b% the members of this Court,$or:in" as a colle"iate bod%. n decidin" cases, this Court inclines more tocareful stud% and deliberation rather than to dispatch.

$2istence and acti*ities of the C(( and M'

De have thorou"hl% e3amined the testimonial and documentar%evidence in the present cases, and De f ind it conclusivel% proved, as did thelo$er court, that as of the %ear *+> $hen elements of the police and armedforces of the overnment arrested the defendants in these five cases there$as alread% a nation$ide or"ani!ation of the Communist Part% of thePhilippines CPP/, and that said part% had a $ell-or"ani!ed plan tooverthro$ the Philippine overnment b% armed stru""le and to establish in

the Philippines a communist form of "overnment similar to that of 1ovietRussia and Red China. &he Communist Part% of the Philippines had as itsmilitar% arm the or"ani!ation :no$n as the #9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a n"Ba%an# 9MB/, other$ise or formerl% :no$n as the 9u:balahaps 9u:s/. t isestablished that the rebellious activities of the 9MB, and the commission ofcommon crimes in different parts of the countr% b% the 9MB, $ere directedb% the Communist Part% of the Philippines throu"h its Politburo PB/ and;or1ecretariat 1EC/. &he Politburo and;or the 1ecretariat "ave orders to thefield throu"h its "eneral head2uarters 9G/ and its re"ional commandsREC'1/, and reports to the Politburo and;or 1ecretariat $ere madere"ardin" the activities of the 9MB, "ivin" accounts of the sorties orambushes and attac:s a"ainst elements of the police, the PhilippineConstabular% and the arm%, and of :illin"s, lootin"s and destruction@s of

propert%. t is also established that the plan of the Communist Part% $as notonl% to overthro$ the Philippine overnment but also to :ill officials of theovernment and private individuals $ho refused to cooperate $ith therebels, and orders to this effect $ere transmitted to the 9MB.

Amon" the documentar% evidence presented durin" the trial is theConstitution of the Communist Part% of the Philippines, one of thedocuments sei!ed in one of the raids $hen some of the appellant $erearrested. n this document it is sho$n that the CPP has a National Con"ressNC/ $hich is the hi"hest Authorit% in the part%. &he National Con"ressformulates the policies of the part%, and determines the functions of the part%and of the standin" committeesK i t renders decisions on all problems

re"ardin" or"ani!ations and tactics, and on appeals brou"ht before itK and itelects the members of the Central Committee CC/. &he Central Committee,$hich is the hi"hest authorit% $hen the National Con"ress is not in session,enforces the Constitution, implements the policies formulated b% the NationalCon"ress, promul"ates Rules and re"ulations, supervises all political andor"ani!ational $or: of the part%, ta:es char"e of financial matters and

renders an accountin" thereof to the National Con"ress, and elects theeneral 1ecretar% 1EC/ and all the members of the Politburo. &he PolitburoPB/ is the real e3ecutive bod% of the part%, and is responsible for thee3ecution of the po$ers and duties of the Central Committee $hen the latteris not in session. &he eneral 1ecretar% and the Politburo are responsible tothe Central Committee for all their decisions and actions. &hen there aredepartments, bureaus, committees and other or"ani!ational units. &here isthe National Education 0epartment NE0/, the educational 0epartmentE0/, the 'r"ani!ation Bureau 'B/, the 'r"ani!ational 0epartment '0/,the 0istrict 'r"ani!ation Committee 0'C/ the Peasants@ 'r"ani!ation P'/,the &rade <nion 0epartment &<0/, the 1an""unian &an""ulan" Bar%o1&B/, the Militar% Committee MC/, the eneral 9ead2uarters 9G/, theRe"ional Command REC'/, the Field Command FC/, the Battalion BN/,the Compan%, C'/, the Platoon PN/, and the 12uad 1G0/. &here is alsothe National Finance Committee NFC/ in char"e of the financial matters ofthe Part%, the REC' Finance Committee RFC/, the 0istrict FinanceCommittee 0FC/, the Field Command 1uppl% 'fficer FC--6/, theBattalion 1uppl% 'fficer Bn--6/, the Compan% 1uppl% 'fficer Co--6/, thePlatoon 1uppl% 'fficer Pln-1-6/, the National Courier 0ivision NC0/, theReco Courier 0ivision RCB/, the Central Post CP/, and Field CommandCourier FC-Courier/.

&he 1ecretariat provisionall% assumed the functions of the 9G $hich$as abolished b% the Politburo in its conference in anuar% *+>. &he1ecretariat alone has final authorit% to impose the death penalt% in courtmartial cases $here 1ECC'M National Committee/ cadres are involved.1everal 1EC transmissions to the Politburo members assi"ned to re"ionalcommands indicate that the 1ecretariat discussed plans of attac: b% the9MB, distributes forces, and supplies intelli"ence information.

&here is the National Courier or Communication/ 0ivision NC0/,$hich is in char"e of the communication s%stem of the CPP, and thedistribution of supplies to the different re"ional commands in the field. &hereis a 1pecial Darfare 0ivision, in char"e of operatin" technolo"ical $arfarea"ainst the enem% such as the use of homemade bombs, molotov coc:tails,land mine traps, etc. &here is the &echnical roup &/ $hich attends to themanufacture of homemade firearms and other $eapons. &his "roup includeschemists and en"ineers. &hen there is the National ntelli"ence 0ivision, in



char"e of "atherin" militar% intelli"ence, as $ell as political and economicintelli"ence.

For purposes of re"ional commands, the Philippines $as divided"eo"raphicall% into ten re"ions in order to facilitate the political, militar%, andeconomic administration b% the Communist Part% of the Philippines. &hose

re"ional commands are as follo$s4 .

REC' * I Nueva Eci8a, Pan"asinan and lo$er Mt. Province.

REC' ( I Pampan"a, &arlac, ambales and Bataan.

REC' ) I Bulacan and Ri!al, e3cept the to$ns under Cit%Command.

REC' 6 I a"una, Batan"as, Gue!on and Cavite.

REC' I Camarines Norte, Camarines 1ur, Alba% and1orso"on.

REC' 7 I Pana%, Ne"ros, Cebu, 1amar, e%te, Bohol andPala$an.

REC' ? I 0avao, anao, Cotabato, amboan"a and A"usan.

REC' 5 I Ca"a%an alle% provinces and Nueva isca%a.

REC' + I locos Norte, locos 1ur, Abra, and a <nion.

C&J C'MMAN0 I Manila, Malabon, Caloocan, Navotas,1an Francisco del Monte, Gue!on Cit%, Mandalu%on", 1an uan,Mari:ina, Pasi", uadalupe, Pasa%, Baclaran, ParaLa2ue,Muntin"lupa and Alaban".

&he Communist Part% of the Philippines has a fla", colored red, $iththe s%mbols of the hammer and the sic:le E3hibit A/, and a ne$spaperor"an called #&&1#. n the "eneral plan to indoctrinate the masses intocommunistic ideas and principles, communist schools I some of themcalled #1talin <niversit%# I $ere set up in a number of places in the

mountain fastnesses, $here trained instructors "ave lectures and tau"htlessons in the principles of =arl Mar3, Frederich En"els, oseph 1talin andNicolai enin. .

As has been stated, the CPP has an armed force, $hich is the 9MB.&he predecessor of the 9MB $as the 9<=BAA9AP, an or"ani!ation

created b% the part% durin" the apanese occupation to resist the apaneseforces. <pon liberation of the Philippines, the members of the 9u:balahapcontinued their activities, the or"ani!ation $as renamed 9MB, and itsmembers $ere indoctrinated in communistic principles. &he members of the9MB are :no$n as #9u:s#.

&he tie-up bet$een the CPP and the 9MB is established be%onddoubt b% the evidence. t is sho$n that the heads of the CPP $ere in re"ularcommunication $ith the leaders of the 9MB, and the raids, ambushes,burnin"s, lootin"s and :illin"s $ere planned and authori!ed b% the CPP. Appellant Federico Maclan", $ho is a member of the Politburo, in histestimon%, admitted that the 9MB is the armed force of the CPP. uis &aruc,$ho at the time $as the head of the 9MB, participated in the meetin"s and

deliberations of the CPP. 1ome instances ma% be cited4 */ Dhen uis&aruc, leader of the 9MB, $as intervie$ed b% Manuel Manahan representin"the ne$spaper #Ba"on" Buha%#, sometime in ul% *+>, the said intervie$$as planned, approved and authori!ed b% the 1ecretariat of the CommunistPart%. &he purpose of the intervie$ $as to ma:e &aruc declare about thetrue status of the leadership in the 9MB and the CPP, and belie reports ofdivision amon" the leadersK (/ Dhen appellant 1imeon Rodri"ue!, amember of the Politburo and a ran:in" member of the National FinanceCommittee, $as arrested at (75 Pasa8e Rosario, Paco, Manila on 'ctober*5, *+>, there $ere found in his possession 7 P*>>-bills and 7> P>-billsand also P*6 circulatin" notes and )*( in paper currenc% $hose serialnumbers e3cept t$o dollars/ tallied $ith the serial numbers of part of themone% amountin" to more than P5>,>>>/ that $as ta:en b% the 9u:s f rom

the safe of the office of the Provincial &reasurer $hen the% raided 1ta. Cru!,a"una, on Au"ust (7, *+>. Provincial &reasurer Balbino =abi"tin" ofa"una had a record of the serial numbers of the mone% ta:en b% the 9u:s,and he even issued a $arnin" to the public about the loss of the mone% Imentionin" in the $arnin" the serial numbers of the mone% ta:en. &here aredocuments sho$in" that this mone% ta:en from the provincial treasur% ofa"una $as the sub8ect of communications bet$een uis &aruc andappellant Federico Maclan" and other members of the 1ecretariat.

Dritten articles and official publications of the CPP and 9MB, $hich$ere presented as evidence, sho$ the tie-up bet$een the CPP and 9MB.Follo$in" are some e3cerpts from those publications4



As the situation no$ stands, it can be assumed that the M'under Communist leadership, alread% en8o%s a 2uantitative ed"eover the Nationalista Part% ... E3h. =-(**, p. ?, #1tru""le a"ainst A$aitism#. Emphasis supplied/.

&he enem% $as cau"ht b% surprise. &he CPP and the 9MB it

is leading scored a tremendous political victor% ... E3h. '-)),#&$ent% Jears of 1tru""le of the CPP.# Emphasis supplied/

0ocumentar% and testimonial evidence establish that the various raidsand ambuscades perpetrated b% the 9MB $ere planned, directed andsupported b% the CPP. &hus, in the #Milestones in the 9istor% of the CPP#,$ritten b% appellant ose ava, it is stated that at the enlar"ed Politburoconference of anuar%, *+>, it $as decided to intensif% 9MB militar%operations for political and or"ani!ational purposes. &he $idespread raidsand attac:s on the occasion of the 5th 9MB anniversar% March (5-(+,*+>/ $as decided at the PB conference4

&he conference specificall% decided to launch coordinatedmilitar% operations on the occasion of the ei"ht anniversar% of the9MB. E3h. (6+, Folder of E3hibits, ol. ./

&he CPP ordered the 9MB to fi"ht the Philippine Constabular% andattac: "overnment installations. &hus testified Ben8amin Advincula, a formerhi"h ran:in" 9MB member, $ho said that $hen he $as 1ecretar% of REC'No. 6, he received orders for transmission to the 9MB to fi"ht the PhilippineConstabular%. Attac:s b% the 9MB $ere also reported to the CPP. &heaccomplishments, for instance, of REC' ( durin" the attac:s at da$n onMarch (+, *+> $ere reported in Enten"@s uis &aruc/ letter to the1ecretariat on April *, *+>. &his letter reported the ambush and li2uidationof Captain 0umlao and othersK the attac: and burnin" of the C Civilianuard/ camp at Manibon", Porac, and the capture of arms and ammunitionsthereatK the losses on the enem% sideK the burnin" of *( houses and theli2uidation of ( spies at Mabalacat, Pampan"a. A similar report $asfurnished b% a certain Pedrin" of REC' ( in a letter to Eto FedericoMaclan"/ dated April (, *+>.

t $as, in fact, the Communist Part% that celebrated the ei"hthanniversar% of the 9MB, as appears in the Communist Part% document#&$ent% Jears of 1tru""le of the CPP# in $hich $e read about thesimultaneous attac:s of the 9MB on March (+, *+> the follo$in"4

n 2uic: succession, the Part% celebrated the ei"hthanniversar% of the 9MB b% the coordinated militar% operations fromthe far north do$n to southern u!on ... E3h. '-)), Folder ofE3hibits, ol. /

&he 1ecretariat issued the follo$in" instructions in connection $ith the

Ma% *, *+> abor 0a%/ attac:4

... Repeat March (+ simultaneous attac:s to time $ith Ma% *celebration to convince the $or:ers of the peasants@ unit% instru""le $ith them. Part% and 9MB messa"es to be sent. E3h. '-)*), Folder of E3hibits, ol. /

Repl%in" to said order E3h. >-)*)/, the Politburo representative ofRe"ional Command No. ) $rote aston ose ava of the 1ecretariat/ andsaid4

<:ol sa Plan for Ma% lst '=. De $ill tr% our best to

accomplish our part $ithout hesitation. E3h. M-*?+, Folder ofE3hibits, ol. /.

&he Ma% *, *+> attac: $as follo$ed b% simultaneous attac:s b% the9MB on Au"ust (7, *+>, in commemoration of the first #Cr% of Balinta$a:.#&hese attac:s $ere a"ain decided, planned and directed b% the CommunistPart% of the Philippines as sho$n b% transmissions from the 1ecretariat tothe Politburo members in the field. E3hs. '-+)K par. (K '-*>(, par. 7/. &heattac:s on Au"ust (7, *+> $ere also ordered b% the 1ecretariat, becausethe evidence sho$s that the 1ecretariat re2uired submission of completereport thereof, and reports $ere in fact submitted b% &aruc Enten"/ on1eptember +, *+> E3hs. '-7)5, par. 5K '-(?5/.

&he Communist Part% also planned the attac: for November ?, *+>,the (>th anniversar% of the CPP, $hich re2uired bi""er operations than theattac: of Au"ust (7, because to$ns $ere to be captured, barrac:s and 8ails$ere to be raided and political enemies $ere to be li2uidated. &he 1ECassi"ned and allocated the forces to different phases and places ofoperations. n hand-$ritten notes identified b% e3pert $itness to have been$ritten b% appellant ose ava, the follo$in" appears in connection $ith theplans for November ?4

... Coordinated I Core4 Capture of to$ns near Manila, butnear Mt. bases I Coordination of REC' (, ) O 6, Ri!al I Cavite.



Pol li2uidation in Cit%. Brin"in" fi"ht near strate"ic political, militar%and economic centers 1upportin" REC' * in 'C'1 OCAAJAN. REC' in BC' O REC' 7 in 1AJA1. E3h. '-*(./

As De have stated, the primordial ob8ective of the Communist Part% of the Philippines and of its armed force, the 9MB, $as to overthro$ the

Philippine overnment b% armed stru""le. &o attain this ob8ective, the CPPalso envisioned the follo$in" e3pansion4 of the cadres from ),7>> in ul%,*+> to 7,>>> in 1eptember *+*K of the part% members from *>,+>> inul%, *+> to *?(,5>> in 1eptember, *+*K of 9MB members from *>,5>> inul%, *+> to *?(,5>> in 1eptember, *+*K and of the or"ani!ed massesfrom )>,>>> in ul%, *+> to (,6)>,>>> in 1eptember, *+*.

&he Communist Part% declared the e3istence of a revolutionar%situation in November, *+6+ and $ent under"round. &his appears in thefollo$in" e3cerpts from documents that $ere presented as evidence durin"the trial.

Guic:l% si!in" up the e3istence of a revolutionar% situation,arisin" from the mer"er ... of the crises of production due to theimperialist-feudal domination of our econom%, and theparliamentar% crises due to fraud and terrorism in the *+6+elections, the CPP openl% called on the people to overthro$ theiberal Part% puppets of the American imperialists. E3h. '-)(,#&$ent% Jears of 1tru""le of the CPP#, E3h. '-*( hhQ/

n the Philippines, the CPP has alread% declared thee3istence of a revolutionar% situationK and it is concentratin" all itsener"ies to$ards the hastenin" of the maturit% of the revolutionar%situation into a crisis leadin" to the overthro$ of the imperialistpuppets and the achievement of the NED 0EM'CRACJ. E3h. '-+6+, #1trate"% and &actics,# E3hs. '-*(7-*6*/ .

&he CPP has declared the e3istence of a revolutionar%situationK since November, *+6+, as a result of the mer"er of thecrisis in production of our imperialist feudal dominated econom%and the crisis of the bur"eois parliamentarism ... 1ince then, theCPP $ent completel% under"round, and openl% called on thepeople for the armed overthro$ of the po$er of Americanimperialism and its allies in the Philippines e3ercised throu"h itspuppets ... E3h. '-7/

&he Communist Part% of the Philippines is leadin" the armedstru""le for national liberation and the establishment of a Ne$0emocrac% in order to crush the po$er of the e3ploiters, achievepo$er for the e3ploited classes, and $ho are disposed to acceptthe ne$ societ% ...# E3h. '-**+ #Accountin" for the Peoples@ FundReceived and 1pent to Finance the Revolution#K see also E3hs. =-

*( u/, N-?>-?), M-*?6, =-(66, '-?6+-7, 0ocuments approvedb% 1EC in its meetin" on Februar% *, *+>. E3h. '-)*(, par. ).1ee ol. , Folder of E3hibits/

... &he Communist Part% mar:s the 6th anniversar% of theCRJ 'F BAN&ADA= callin" on the people to 8oin the 9MB inannihilatin" the enem% toda%, no different from the enem%denounced b% Bonifacio. E3h. M-*(6, ol. , Folder of E3hibits/.

De find that the criminal acts, consistin" of attac:s a"ainst PhilippineConstabular%, murders, robberies, :idnappin", arson, etc. alle"ed in theinformation are dul% proved b% evidence presented durin" the trial. t isnote$orth% that the appellants did not attempt to disprove the evidence

re"ardin" the commission of these crimes. Besides those alle"ed in theinformation, there $ere other acts of attac:s a"ainst the PhilippineConstabular%, murders, robberies, etc. that $ere committed b% the 9u:s thatare proved b% the evidence I also not disproved b% the appellants I asfollo$s4

*/ 'n March (+, *+>, a band of armed 9u:s carr%in" acommunist fla" raided 1an Pablo, a"una. An encounter $ith the(?th PC Compan% ensued, and several members of the PC $erein8ured. &he 9u:s looted several Chinese stores.

(/ At about ) o@cloc: in the mornin" of Au"ust (7, *+>,appro3imatel% 6>> 9u: dissidents armed $ith machine "uns andrifles attac:ed 1anta Cru!, a"una. &he cashier of the office of theProvincial &reasurer $as forced at "un point, to open the vault from$hich the 9u:s too: more than P5>,7>>. &he 9u:s also too:t%pe$riters and office supplies from the office of the Provincial&reasurer. &he 9u:s, after forcin" the $arden to "ive the :e%s,opened the provincial 8ail and released the prisoners. &he provincial 8ail $as later burned. &he 9u:s looted houses and too: rice,ci"arettes and clothes, and burned five buildin"s.



)/ 'n March (+, *+>, several 9u:s raided 1an Mateo, Ri!al,opened the safe in the municipal buildin" and too: mone%. &he%also "ot food and medicines from the to$nspeople.

6/ 'n Au"ust (5, *+>, 9u:s attac:ed the municipal buildin" of Ara%at, Pampan"a, and forced the municipal ma%or at the point of a

"un to "ive P),7(+.)* in cash and some documentar% stamps.=illed durin" the incident $as one Att%. 1amia.

/ 'n March (5, *+>, about 5> to *>> 9u:s attac:ed 1an Rafael,Montalban, :illin" 6 and $oundin" all soldiers. After the attac:, the9u:s left communist propa"anda leaflets.

7/ 'n Au"ust )>, *+6+, upon receivin" a report that there $as aconcentration of 9u:s at =amo", 1an ose del Monte, Bulacan, t.Restituto A. Bisda or"ani!ed a patrol of (> enlisted men. 'n the$a% the patrol $as fired upon b% the 9u:s. After the encounter, one9u: member $as found dead and from his bod% $ere ta:en severaldocuments.

?/ 'n 'ctober * and *?, *+>, P.C. t. elas2ue! led threeplatoons of soldiers to the south$estern slope of Mount MalipuLo atipa Cit% upon receipt of a report that about (>> 9u:s $ere"athered in that place. Dhile climbin" the mountain the% $eresuddenl% attac:ed and fired upon b% the dissidents : illin" onesoldier and $oundin" others. Dhen the% retaliated, the 9u:sretreated leavin" behind a $ounded 9u:. &he 9u:s abandonedtheir hideouts in the place. <pon inspection, t. elas2ue! found ahut $ith several blac:boards, papers and other school suppliesinside and a red hammer-and-sic:le fla" displa%ed on the $all $ithletters #1&AN <# 1talin <niversit%/, $hich indicated that the placeis one of the militar% schools for the 9u:s. &he fla" $as producedin court and mar:ed E3hibit #A# for the prosecution. &his fla" hadbeen identified b% a $itness for the prosecution, a former 9u:Colonel named Ben8amin Advincula, to be the official fla" of the9MB in their militar% trainin" school in the mountains $herein hehad also under"one 9u: militar% trainin"./

5/ At about midni"ht on March (+, *+>, 9u: dissidents enteredthe to$n of &anauan, Batan"as. Accordin" to eor"e Collantes, themunicipal ma%or, there $as shootin" in the to$n, and later theindustrial center and mar:et $ere burned after the% $ere raided.

Ma%or Collantes sa$ a red fla" hoisted b% the dissidents. &$o ofthe 9u: dissidents $ere :illed.

ssues raised b" appellants

&he appellants, in their defense in the present appeals, have raisedissues that are common to them all, and also issues particular to each one of them. &he issues particular to individual appellants $ill be discussed at thelatter part of this opinion $hen $e deal $ith their respective appeals.

*. &he appellants are char"ed $ith havin" committed the crime ofrebellion $ith murders and arsons. &he trial court declared some of them"uilt% as principals, and some as accomplices, in the commission of thecrime of rebellion comple3ed $ith multiple murder, arsons and robberies.

&he la$ pertinent to the determination of the criminal responsibilit% ofthe appellants are Articles *)6, *), and *)7 of Revised Penal Code, asfollo$s4 .

AR& *)6. Rebellion or insurrection I o+ committed . I &hecrime of rebellion or insurrection is committed b% risin" publicl% andta:in" arms a"ainst the overnment for the purpose of removin"from the alle"iance to said overnment or its la$s, the territor% ofthe Philippine slands or an% part thereof, of an% bod% of land, navalor other armed forces, or of deprivin" the Chief E3ecutive or thee"islature, $holl% or partiall%, of an% of their po$ers orprero"atives.

AR&. *). (enalt" for rebellion or insurrection. I An% person$ho promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion or insurrection, or$ho, $hile holdin" an% public office or emplo%ment ta:es part

therein, en"a"in" in $ar a"ainst the forces of the overnment,destro%in" propert% or committin" serious violence, e3actin"contributions or divertin" public funds from the la$ful purpose for$hich the% have been appropriated, shall suffer the penalt% ofprision ma%or and a fine not to e3ceed (>,>>> pesos.

An% person merel% participatin" or e3ecutin" the commandsof others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalt% of prision ma"or in itsminimum period.



Dhen the rebellion or insurrection shall be under thecommand of un:no$n leaders, an% person $ho in fact directed theothers, spo:e for them, si"ned receipts and other documentsissued in their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of therebels shall be deemed the leader of such rebellion.

AR&. *)7. Conspirac% and proposal to commit rebellion orinsurrection. I &he conspirac% and proposal to commit rebellion orinsurrection shall be punished, respectivel%, b% prisioncorreccional in its ma3imum period and a fine $hich shall note3ceed ,>>> pesos, and b% prision correccional in its mediumperiod and a fine not e3ceedin" (,>>> pesos.

t is the common contention of the appellants that the trial court erredin declarin" that the crime committed b% the appellants $as that of #rebellioncomple3ed $ith multiple murder, arsons, and robberies.#

De uphold the contention of the appellants. &he 2uestion, of $hetheror not a person ma% be prosecuted and held "uilt% of the crime of rebellioncomple3ed $ith murder, arson, robber% and;or other common crimes, is no$settled. n the case of (eople *s. ernande& etc. et al ., * this Court held thatthe crime of rebellion cannot be comple3ed $ith other common crimes. &heaccused in the 9ernande! case $ere char"ed, as are appellants in theinstant cases, #$ith the crime of rebellion $ith multiple murder, arsons, androbberies.# &his Court ruled that4

'ne of the means b% $hich rebellion ma% be committed, inthe $ords of said Article *), is b% #en"a"in" in $ar a"ainst theforces of the "overnment# and #committin" serious violence# in theprosecution of said #$ar#. &hese e3pressions impl% ever%thin" that$ar connotes, namel%K resort to arms, re2uisition of propert% andservices, collection of ta3es and contributions, restraint of libert%,dama"e to propert%, ph%sical in8uries and loss of life, and thehun"er, illness and unhappiness that $ar leaves in its $a:e Ie3cept that ver% often, it is $orse than $ar in the internationalsense, for it involves internal stru""le, a fi"ht bet$een brothers,$ith a bitterness and a passion or ruthlessness seldom found in acontest bet$een stran"ers. Bein" $ithin the purvie$ of #en"a"in" in$ar# and #committin" serious violence#, said resort to arms, $iththe resultin" impairment or destruction of life and propert%,constitutes not t$o or more offenses, but onl% onecrime I that ofrebellion plain and simple. &hus, for instance, it has been held that#the crime of treason ma% be committed# b% e3ecutin" either a

single or similar intentional overt acts, different or similar butdistinct, and for that reason it ma" be considered one singlecontinuous offense. uinto vs. elu!, ?? Phil. 5>*, 66 'ff. a!.,+>+./# People vs. Pacheco, +) Phil. (*./.

nasmuch as the acts specified in said Article *) constitute,

$e repeat, one single crime, it follo$s necessaril% that said actsoffer no occasion for the application of Article 65, $hich re2uirestherefor the commission of, at least, t$o crimes. 9ence, this courthas ne*er in the past, convicted an% person of the #comple3 crimeof rebellion $ith murder#. Dhat is more, it appears that in e*er"one of the cases of rebellion published in the Philippine Reports,the defendants $ere convicted of simple rebellion, although the"had 0illed se*eral persons, sometimes peace officers. <.1. vs.a"nason, ) Phil. 6?(K <.1. vs. Baldello, ) Phil. >+K <.1. vs. A%ala,7 Phil. **K ea"ue vs. People, ?) Phil. */

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

&here is one other reason I and a fundamental one at thatI $h% Article 65 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in the caseat bar. f murder $ere not comple3ed $ith rebellion, and the t$ocrimes punished separatel% assumin" that this could be done/, thefollo$in" penalties $ould be imposable upon the movant, namel%4*/ for the crime of rebellion, a fine not e3ceedin" P(>,>>>and prision ma"or , in the correspondin" period, dependin" uponthe modif%in" circumstances present, but never e3ceedin" *( %earsof prision ma"or K and (/ for the crime of murder, reclusion temporalin its ma3imum period to death, dependin" upon the modif%in"circumstances present. n other $ords, in the absence ofa""ravatin" circumstances, the e3treme penalt% could not beimposed upon him. 9o$ever, under Article 65, said penalt" +ould

ha*e to be meted out to him e*en in the absence of a singleaggra*ating circumstance. &hus, said provision, if construed inconformit% $ith the theor% of the prosecution, $ould be unfavorableto the movant.

<pon the other hand, said Article 65 $as enacted for thepurpose of fa*oring the culprit, not of sentencin" him to apenalt% more se*ere than that $hich $ould be proper if the severalacts performed b% him $ere punished separatel%. n the $ords ofRodri"ue! Navarro4



a unificacion de penas en los casos de concursode delitos a 2ue hace referencia este articulo ? delCodi"o de *+)(/, esta basado francamente en elprincipio pro reo. 0octrina Penal del &ribunal 1upremode EspaLa, p. (*75./

... t is evident to us that the polic% of our statutes on rebellionis to consider all acts committed in furtherance thereof I asspecified in Article *)6 and *) of the Revised Penal Code I asconstitutin" onl%one crime, punishable $ith one single penalt% Inamel%, that prescribed in said Article *). ....

... n conclusion, $e hold that, under the alle"ations of theamended information a"ainst defendant-appellant Amado .9ernande!, the murders, arsons and robberies described thereinare mere in"ridients of the crime of rebellion alle"edl% committed b%the said defendants, as means #necessar%# 6/ for the perpetrationof said offense of rebellionK that the crime char"ed in theaforementioned amended information is, therefore, simple rebellion,

not the comple3 crime of rebellion $ith multiple murder, arsons androbberiesK that the ma3imum penalt% imposable under such char"ecannot e3ceed t$elve *(/ %ears of prision ma%or and a fine ofP(>,>>>K and that, in conformit% $ith the polic% of this court indealin" $ith accused persons amenable to a similar punishment,said defendant ma% be allo$ed to bail.# &he fore"oin" rulin" $asadhered to in the decisions of this Court in the cases of People vs.eronimo, .R. No. -5+)7, 'ctober (), *+7K (eople *s.,ogonon, .R. No. -5+(7, une (+, *+?K (eople *s.Romagosa .R. No. -56?7, Februar% (5, *+5K and (eople *s.Santos, .R. No. -**5*), 1eptember *?, *+5.

n (eople *s. Geronimo supra this Court further elaborated on the

9ernande! rulin", as follo$s4

As in treason, $here both intent and overt act are necessar%,the crime of rebellion is inte"rated b% the coe3istence of both thearmed uprisin" for the purposes e3pressed in Article *)6 of theRevised Penal Code, and the overt acts of violence described inthe first para"raph of Article *). &hat both purpose and overt actsare essential components of one crime, and that $ithout either ofthem the crime of rebellion le"all% does not e3ist is sho$n b% theabsence of an% penalt% attached to Article *)6. t follo$s, therefore,that an% or all of the acts described in Article *), $hen committed

as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends described in Article *)6, becomes absorbed in the crime of rebellion, and cannotbe re"arded or penali!ed as distinct crimes in themselves. n la$the% are part and parcel of the rebellion itself, and cannot beconsidered as "ivin" rise to a separate crime, that, under Article 65of the Code, $ould constitute a comple3 one $ith that of rebellion.

And in (eople *s. !%uino et al ., -*)?5+, une )>, *+7>, ? '..+*5>, this Court said4

'n the other hand, from the ver% testimon% of FilomenoCasal, another $itness for the prosecution, it can be "athered thatthe one $ho :illed or ordered the :illin" of Mendo!a $asCommander 1ilva $ho, accordin" to Casal, ordered Mendo!a to liedo$n and $hen the latter refused he shot him. f $e are to believethe testimon% of this $itness the onl% one responsible forMendo!a@s death is Commander 1ilva for there is nothin" to sho$that his companions $ho $ere under his command :ne$ that hisdesi"n $as to li2uidate him. At an% rate, since it appears that the

:illin" $as committed not because of an% personal motive on thepart of the accused but merel% in pursuance of the hu: movementto overthro$ the dul% constituted authorities, the proper char"ea"ainst them $ould be rebellion and not murder ....

&he reason for this $as alread% "iven b% this Court in (eople *s.ernande& et al. supra, to $it4

n short, political crimes are those directl% aimed a"ainst thepolitical order, as $ell as such common crimes as ma% becommitted to achieve a political purpose. ,he decisi*e factor is theintent or moti*e. f a crime usuall% re"arded as common, li:ehomicide, is perpetrated for the purpose of removin" from thealle"iance #to the overnment the territor% of the Philippine slandsor an% part thereof,# then said offense becomes stripped of its#common# comple3ion, inasmuch as, bein" part and parcel of thecrime of rebellion, the former ac2uires the political character of thelatter.#(

&he 1olicitor eneral, in behalf of the appellee, &he People of thePhilippines, as:s this Court to ree3amine the rulin" in the 9ernande! case#based not onl% on "rounds of public polic% but also to interpret the la$ inorder to have 8ustice and ade2uac% into the Philippine la$ on rebellion onthe basis of prevailin" 8urisprudential schools of thou"ht such as the



sociolo"ical theor% on the natural la$ doctrine and ... the polic% sciencetheor%.# ) &his Court has "iven this plea of the 1olicitor eneral a ver%serious consideration, but after a mature deliberation the members of thisCourt have decided to maintain that rulin" in the 9ernande! case and toadhere to $hat this Court said in that case, as follo$s4

&he Court is conscious of the :een interest displa%ed, andthe considerable efforts e3erted, b% the E3ecutive 0epartment inthe apprehension and prosecution of those believed to be "uilt% ofcrimes a"ainst public order, of the lives lost, and the time andmone% spent in connection there$ith, as $ell as of the possibleimplications or repercussions in the securit% of the 1tate. &hecareful consideration "iven to said polic% of a coordinate and co-e2ual branch of the overnment is reflected in the time consumed,the e3tensive and intensive research $or: underta:en, and theman% meetin"s held b% the members of the court for the purpose of elucidatin" on the 2uestion under discussion and of settlin" thesame.

&he role of the 8udicial department under the Constitution is,ho$ever, clear I to settle 8usticiable controversies b% theapplication of the la$. And the latter must be enforced as it is I$ith all its fla$s and defects, not affectin" its validit% I not as the 8ud"es $ould have it. n other $ords, the courts must appl% thepolic% of the 1tate as set forth in i ts la$s, re"ardless of the $isdomthereof.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

&hus the settled polic% of our la$s on rebellion, since thebe"innin" of the centur%, has been one of decided lenienc%, incomparison $ith the la$s in force durin" the 1panish re"ime. 1uchpolic% has not suffered the sli"htest alteration. Althou"h theovernment has, for the past five or si3 %ears, adopted a morevi"orous course of action in the apprehension of violators of saidla$ and in their prosecution, the established polic% of the 1tate, asre"ards the punishment of the culprits has remained unchan"edsince *+)(. t is not for us to consider the merits and demerits ofsuch polic%. &his falls $ithin the province of the polic%-ma:in"branch of the overnment I the Con"ress of the Philippines ...

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

1uch evils as ma% result from the failure of the polic% of thela$ punishing the offense to dovetail $ith the polic% of the la$enforcin" a"encies in the apprehension and prosecution of theoffenders are matters $hich ma% be brou"ht to the attention of thedepartments concerned. &he 8udicial branch cannot amend theformer in order to suit the latter. &he Court cannot indul"e in 8udicial

le"islation $ithout violatin" the principles of separation of po$ers,and, hence, underminin" the foundation of our republican s%stem.n short, $e cannot accept the theor% of the prosecution $ithoutcausin" much bi""er harm than that $hich $ould alle"edl% resultfrom the adoption of the opposite vie$.

(. &he appellants also contend that the informations a"ainst them char"emore than one offense, in violation of 1ection *(, Rule *>7 of the old Rulesof Court no$ 1ection *(, Rule **? of the ne$ Rules of Court/. &hiscontention has no merit. A readin" of the informations reveals the theor% ofthe prosecution that the accused had committed the comple3 crime ofrebellion $ith murders, robberies and arsons, enumeratin" therein ei"htcounts re"ardin" specific acts of murder, robber% and arson. &hese acts

$ere committed, to 2uote the information, #to create and spread terrorism inorder to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose#, that is, tooverthro$ the overnment. &he appellants are not char"ed $ith thecommission of each and ever% crime specified in the counts as crimesseparate and distinct from that of rebellion. &he specific acts are alle"edmerel% to complete the narration of facts, thereb% specif%in" the $a% thecrime of rebellion $as alle"edl% committed, and to apprise the defendants ofthe particular facts intended to be proved as the basis for a findin" ofconspirac% and;or direct participation in the commission of the crime ofrebellion. 6 An information is not duplicitous if it char"es several related acts,all of $hich constitute a sin"le offense, althou"h the acts ma% in themselvesbe distinct offenses. Moreover, this Court has held that acts of murder,arson, robber%, ph%sical in8uries, etc. are absorbed b%, and form part andparcel of, the crime of rebellion if committed as a means to or in furtherance

of the rebellion char"ed. 7

). Another contention of appellants is that the trial court, the Court of Firstnstance of Manila, did not have 8urisdiction to tr% the cases a"ainst thembecause the acts enumerated in the ei"ht counts in the information $erecommitted outside the territorial 8urisdiction of the court. &his contention isalso $ithout merit. 1ection *6 of Rule **> of the Rules of Court provides thatthe criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipalit%or province $here the offense $as committed or an% one of the essentialin"redients thereof too: place. &he informations alle"e that Manila is theseat of the overnment of the Republic of the Philippines $hich the



appellants sou"ht to overthro$ and that Manila $as chosen b% the accusedas the nerve center of all their rebellious activities in the different parts of thecountr%. Dhile it is true that the murders, robberies and arsons alle"ed in theinformation $ere committed outside the Cit% of Manila, in the informations itis alle"ed that it $as in Manila $here the accused had decided and a"reedto commit the crime of rebellion and it $as in Manila $here the% promoted,

maintained, caused, directed and;or commanded the 9MB to r ise publicl%and ta:e arms a"ainst the overnment, as in fact the 9MB had risenpublicl%, ma:in" armed raids, sorties, ambushes, and committin" $antonacts of murder, arson, lootin", etc. An essential in"redient of the crime of$hich appellants $ere char"ed, therefore, too: place in Manila.

6. 1ome of the appellants contend that their constitutional ri"hts $ereviolated because the documentar% evidence presented a"ainst them $ereille"all% sei!ed or had come from doubtful sources. &his claim has no merit.De have carefull% e3amined the record, and De find that search $arrants$ere properl% secured b% the peace officers before raids $ere effected andthat the documents, articles and effects sei!ed f rom each place raided $erelisted, inventoried and mar:ed. t even appears that statements $ere si"ned

b% some of the appellants certif%in" that the search $arrants $ere e3ecutedin an orderl% and peaceful manner b% the raidin" parties.

. &he appellants assail the reconstitution of the e3hibits that $eredestro%ed, and claim that the reconstituted e3hibits should not be consideredin this appeal. De have stated at the earlier part of this opinion that thee3hibits documentar% and other articles/ $ere placed in the custod% of thePhilippine Constabular% because the% had to be presented as evidence inthe trial of rebellion cases pendin" in other courts. Most of the ori"inals ofthe documentar% evidence $ere burned durin" the fire that "utted thehead2uarters of the Philippine Constabular% on 1eptember *>, *+5. &he1olicitor eneral filed a petition for the reconstitution of the burned e3hibits.&he petition $as "iven due course b% this Court, and the 0eput% Cler: of this

Court $as commissioned to receive the evidence on the reconstitution of theburned documents. &he list of reconstituted e3hibits is E3hibit C-Reconstitution. n his report, dated 'ctober 7, *++, the Commissionerrecommended the admission of all the reconstituted e3hibits.

De find that the reconstitution $as made in accordance $ith theprovisions of Act )**>, $hich provides for the procedure in the reconstitutionof court records. 1ection + of said act provides that destro%ed documentar%evidence shall be reconstituted b% means of secondar% evidence $hich ma%be presented to an% ustice of the 1upreme Court or an% other officercommissioned b% the Court. 1ection *6 of the act provides that thedestro%ed or lost documentar% evidence shall be replaced b% secondar%

evidence. A photostatic cop% of an ori"inal document is admissible as asecondar% evidence of the contents of the ori"inals and the% constituteevidence of a satisfactor% nature. ? &he record sho$s that the photostaticcopies of the destro%ed e3hibits, $hich $ere presented before theCommissioner durin" the reconstitution proceedin"s, $ere ta:en before theori"inals $ere destro%ed b% fire. &he photostatic copies had been compared

$ith the ori"inals, properl% chec:ed and recorded, b% the officer $ho $as thecustodian of the e3hibits.

&he certified t%pe$ritten copies made from the ori"inal documents that$ere hand $ritten in in: are also secondar% evidence of the contents of thelatter. 1"t. A2uilino &in"co, assi"ned as assistant to the document officer inchar"e of the court of e3hibits in the rebellion cases, testified that he $as theone $ho furnished the t%pists the ori"inal documents, and after thoseori"inals $ere copied on the t%pe$riter he compared the t%pe$ritten copies$ith the ori"inals, proofread them, stamped them and had them certified astrue copies. &his $itness further testified that before the certified copies $erepresented in court as evidence said copies $ere compared $ith theirori"inals. 5

0urin" the reconstitution proceedin"s, counsel for appellants ob8ectedto the admission of some of the reconstituted documents upon the "roundthat the% $ere not sufficientl% identified. &he Commissioner, ho$ever,admitted all there constituted documents, and De find that theCommissioner ri"htl% did so. De find that E3hibits R-H-7 to R-P-?)-?+, theadmission of $hich $as ob8ected to, $ere properl% identified. CaptainEnri2ue . Re%es of the PC, $ho $as entrusted $ith the custod% of thedocuments, had the list of all the e3hibits that $ere burned, $hich $ereinventoried and verifiedK as $ell as a list of those e3hibits that $erepresented in these cases, of $hich photostatic copies had been ta:enK and$hen as:ed $here the photostatic copies $ere, Capt. Re%es said that hehad the photostatic copies, and pointed to a bundle of folders containin"

them. &hese e3hibits $ere chec:ed and counter-chec:ed $ith the record ofthe present cases in the 1upreme Court. + 1"t. A2uilino &in"co, $ho brou"htthe e3hibits to the different courts $here the% $ere presented as evidence,and $ho personall% supervised the ta:in" of the microfilm and thephotostatic copies that $ere presented in the courts in lieu of the ori"inals,$hen as:ed to sho$ to the Commissioner the photostats made of thedocuments $hich $ere used the Politburo cases, e3tracted f rom a folder abundle of papers and presented the list of e3hibits E3h. C-Reconstitution/alon" $ith photostatic copies of those listed e3hibits, and he testified onthem. &he $itness $as as:ed to consult the list of e3hibits E3hibit C-Reconstitution/ and he pointed to the Commissioner the e3hibits to bemar:ed accordin" to the list, $hich the Commissioner himself mar:ed. &he



$itness testified that the contents of the documents thus mar:ed $ere thesame as those of the ori"inals. &he Commissioner considered thedocuments properl% identified and he admitted the documents over theob8ection of counsel for the appellants, and he recommended to this Courtthe admission of all of them. &his Court approved the report of theCommissioner.

De have carefull% e3amined and anal%!ed these reconstituted e3hibitsand De believe that the% constitute a competent evidence to be consideredin arrivin" at a decision in these cases.

7. &he appellants also claim that the% $ere not afforded the time andfreedom to prepare for their defense. &his claim of appellants is not borne b%the record. &he record sho$s, that the trial of these cases too: monthsK allthe defendants $ere represented b% counsel, either de officio or de parte,$ho did their best to defend the appellants durin" the trial. n fact thedefense la$%ers $ere commended b% the trial court for their efforts indefense of the appellants. None of the appellants $as deprived of his da% incourt. Ever%one $as "iven an opportunit% testif% and;or adduce evidence in

his behalf. All the appellants, e3cept ose ava and Nicanor Ra!on, 1r.,testified in court in their o$n defense. &he record does not sho$ thatappellant Ra!on had testified or had presented an% evidence in his behalf. Appellant ose ava voluntaril% refrained from ta:in" the $itness stand, but,instead, he presented $itnesses $ho vouched for his "ood moral characterand e3emplar% conduct as a citi!en. De find no merit in the claim that theappellants $ere not afforded ample time and opportunit% to prepare for theirdefense.

9avin" thus resolved the common issues raised b% the appellants, Deno$ proceed to determine the criminal responsibilit%, if an%, of the individualappellants.

&he lo$er court found some of the appellants "uilt% as principals, andsome as accomplices, in the commission of the comple3 crime of rebellion$ith multiple murder, arsons and robberies. De have alread% declared in thisopinion that the crime of rebellion cannot be comple3ed $ith murder, robber%and other common crimes. 'ur tas:, therefore, is to determine the de"ree of responsibilit% of each of the appellants in the commission of the crime ofsimple rebellion as defined and penali!ed under the provisions of Articles*)6, *) and *)7 of the Revised Penal Code.

*. ,he appeal of Jose La*a

<pon a careful stud% of the evidence, De find4

&hat appellant ose ava $as :no$n under these aliases4 9arr%, Feli3Cru!, aston, aston 1ila%an, re", re"orio 1anta%ana and avino. oseava became a member of the Communist Part% of the Philippines durin"the apanese occupation. n a self-appraisal $hich he $rote, and published

in mimeo"raph form $ith the approval of the 1ecretariat, he stated thatalthou"h he $as a ne$ Part% member he had been entrusted $ithresponsible positions in the Part% and that due to his hi"h sense ofresponsibilit% and initiative he could ran: $ith the best in the part%. ava $asnot onl%, a confirmed communistK he $as a ran:in" leader of the CPP, bein"a member of the Central Committee CC/ of the CPP and he participated inthe Politburo meetin"s. n the Politburo conference in Manila in anuar%*+6? he proposed armed stru""le to overthro$ the overnment. 9isparticipation therein $as described in E3hibit '-((5-((+, as follo$s4

... &here $as an attempt in the conference to "ive it acharacter of a CC conference not$ithstandin" the fact that there$ere onl% eleven CC members, out of thirt%-five, present in the

conference. &here $as also an attempt to isolate some CCmembers $ho $ere easil% available, as evidenced b% the non-invitation of Coms J, 9arr% and Pacin" :no$n for their vie$s insupport of the Nacionalista-0emocratic Alliance coalition, and for anearl% resumption of the armed stru""le. t $as onl% later in theconference, $hen their absence $as noted b% certain comrades,that Com 9arr% $as invited to the conference ....

Com 9arr% proposed that the conference declare that armedstru""le be the main form of stru""le ....

'ther documents sho$ that ose ava had been attendin" meetin"sof the 1ecretariat 1EC/ since 'ctober, *+6+. 9e si"ned, under

the alias #aston 1ila%an#, the 1ecretariat@s transmission to the Politburomembers in the field, under date of 'ctober ((, *+6+. 9e issued underdifferent aliases, for and in behalf of the 1ecretariat, 1ecretariattransmissions up to 'ctober *6, *+>. 9e si"ned as #aston# the1ecretariat@s transmission dated 0ecember (6, *+6+K he si"ned as #re"#those of ul% ((, *+>, of 1eptember (), *+>, of 1eptember )>, *+>, of'ctober ?, *+>, and of 'ctober *6, *+>K and si"ned as #avino# thetransmission dated 1eptember (, *+>.



ose ava@s membership in the 1ecretariat of the CPP is sho$n invarious documents E3h. C-*)*) and E3hs. '-(7+-(?>/. n another e3hibit,N-*>*-*>*?, =as. aston $as addressed as the eneral 1ecretar%.

As member of the 1EC, and as eneral 1ecretar%, ose avaattended 1EC meetin"s and transmitted the decisions of the 1EC to the

comrades of the Politburo in the re"ional commands. 9is direct participationin the meetin"s of the 1EC $as mentioned in several 1EC transmissions. none such transmission he aston/ advocated the overthro$ of the corruptiberal Part% administration because of the $holesale fraud and terrorismdurin" the elections of *+6+. n the meetin" of Ma% , *+>, he aston/disa"reed $ith Eto Federico Maclan"/ and ohnn% Ramon Espiritu/ on the$a% of "ivin" mone% to deservin" families, sa%in" that4

Even if $e have a million pesos no$, $e still $ould needsame to bu% arms and ammo, decisivel% improve our propa"andato spread our influence over all the countr%, improve the diet of ourfi"htin" soldiers to increase their fi"htin" efficienc%, all $ith a vie$to hastenin" the people@s victor% and end their sufferin" earlier.

E3h. '-+*, par. (/

n the 1EC meetin" of 1eptember (+, *+> #re"# ose ava/dissented from the ma8orit% decision re8ectin" the proposal that Boris An"elBa:in"/ be allo$ed to attend the Militar% Committee MC/ meetin". E3h. '-))+, par. */.

Apart from his routinar% duties as eneral 1ecretar%, other duties $ereassi"ned to ose ava under hisaliases. &hus, as #aston#, he $asdesi"nated in the 1EC@s meetin" of 0ecember (>, *+6+ to ta:e care of theeditorial of the #&&1#, the official or"an of the Communist Part%K he $as"iven supervision over $omen matters, and over political and educationalmatters, in the meetin"s of Februar% *, *+> and April *6, *+>. #aston#

$as also in char"e of 0irect Part% Propa"anda, Curriculum and Anal%sis. As#re"#, he $as appointed b% the 1EC as one of the * members of theMilitar% Committee MC/. 9e $as to supervise, as decided in the 1ECmeetin" of April *6, *+>, the ne$l% or"ani!ed &echnolo"ical roup. 9e $asinstructed b% the 1EC, in its meetin" of 1eptember *, *+>, to prepare adraft of the resolution for discussion before the Militar% Committee. n themeetin" of the 1EC on 1eptember ((, *+>, he $as "iven po$er to revie$all the minutes and decisions of the National Education Commission NEC/and onl% matters $hich he did not approve $ere to be ta:en up b% the1ecretariat.

ose ava also attended and presided at meetin"s of the Communistsand the 9MB in his house in &e8eron, Ma:ati. *>

ose ava $as the author of man% articles and;or $ritin"s, amon"them4 #1elf-Appraisal b% re"orio 1anta%ana,# a hand$ritten outlineK#1tru""le a"ainst A$aitism, b% re"orio 1anta%ana#, also a hand$ritten

outline, $ith a t%pe$ritten cop%K #'utline of 1trate"% and &actics#K #1trate"%and &actics#K #&$ent% Jears of 1tru""le of the CPP#K #'utline on Milestonesin the 9istor% of the CPP#K #Milestones in the 9istor% of the CPP#, $hich is apart of the curriculum in the secondar% course of the schools conducted b%the CPP. &he #'utline on 1trate"% and &actics# and #1trate"% and &actics#$ere also in the secondar% curriculum te3ts of the CPP. 9e is also the author of #Finance 'pportunism, ts Basic Causes and Remedies#, a portion of$hich reads4 .

... &here is no 2uestion that $e cannot drasticall% eradicatefinance opportunism $ithin the Part% and the National liberationmovement it is leadin", and thereb% hasten the maturit% of therevolutionar% crisis and prepare the Part% to create a clear and

honest bod% of administrators and state functionaries and thereb%maintain the po$er of the NED 0EM'CRACJ that $e are set toestablish.

Another $or: of ose ava is #Accountin" of the People@s FundsReceived and 1pent to Finance the Revolutions#, a portion of $hich reads asfollo$s4

&he Communist Part% of the Philippines is leadin" the armedstru""le for national liberation and the establishment of a Ne$0emocrac% in order to crush the po$er of the e3ploiters, achievepo$er for the e3ploited classes and e3ercise such po$er for theirbenefit, and for those $ho are disposed to accept the ne$

societ% ....

ose ava also $rote other documents, amon" them his hand$rittennotes containin" the territorial e3tent of Recos * to ?, and a plan of attac: onthe November ?, *+> celebrationK a l ist containin" several persons aliases/assi"ned to Recos * to ? and to the Militar%, Pol-Ed, or"ani!ational and 9Gor"ansK a letter to Eto Federico Maclan"/ on the reverse of a list containin"names of MalacaSan special a"ents. 9e also $rote letters to Part%members concernin" the activities of the Part% and;or 9MB I unmista:abl%indicatin" conspirac% or connection bet$een him and other top 9MB andCPP leaders in the field. &hus, #aston# ava/ $rote a letter to eo



Cesareo &orres/ informin" the latter that the stencils for #An" =omunista#$ere alread% sent b% NE0-'ut and that if eo needed funds, he could as:from the NFC. n a letter of 1eptember 6, *+> to Eto Federico Maclan"/,#aston# ava/ transmitted to Maclan" three letters, on the reverse side ofone $hich $as a note of '. Beria Maclan"/ as:in" $ho the $riters $ere. nhis letter of 1eptember (7, *+> #aston# advised Eto Maclan"/ to

circulari!e all Recos about the conference of the REC'-Ed and -) before'ctober *. n his letter of 1eptember *(, aston as:ed the addresseeohnn% Ramon Espiritu/ about the latter@s self-appraisal, the 9ospitalroup, and the selection of t$o additional members to help umin"luminada Calon8e or 1alome Cru!/.

&he fore"oin" findin"s of this Court are based mainl% on documentspresented as evidence durin" the trial. &hose documents $ere ta:en4 somefrom the third floor of the Ma%flo$er Apartments, at Estrada andPenns%lvania 1treets in Manila, $hich $as then rented b% appellant ava$hen it $as raided b% peace officers on une (), *+>K and the otherdocuments from the different places that $ere raided b% the M1 a"ents andthe Manila Police on 'ctober *5, *+>, $here most of the accused in these

five cases $ere arrested. 'ne of the places raided on 'ctober *5, *+> $as75) Pasa8e Rosario, Paco, Manila, $here appellant ava $as arrested alon"$ith his co-accused Federico Bautista, 1imeon Rodri"ue!, ictorina .Rodri"ue! and Pedro icencio. Numerous documents, boo:s, and articles$ere sei!ed at that place $here ava $as arrested, and those documents$ere used as evidence durin" the trial of these five cases in the court belo$.

1ome of the documents thus sei!ed, and $hich $ere presented asevidence, $ere in appellant ava@s hand$ritin", or $ere si"ned b% him usin"his alias names. &his is clearl% established b% the testimon% of a hand$ritin"e3pert that $as presented b% the prosecution. &he conclusion of thehand$ritin" e3pert $as based on the specimens of ava@s hand$ritin" $hich$ere used as standards in comparin" $ith the hand$ritin" and;or si"nature

in alias/ of the appellant that appear in the documents that $ere presentedas evidence a"ainst him. t is contended b% appellant@s counsel that no"enuine specimen of ava@s hand$ritin" $as presented as standard forcomparison. De do not see merit in this contention. De find that thestandards for comparison that $ere used $ere the documents mar:edE3hibits FF-* and FF-(. **E3hibit FF-* is an application for emplo%mentsi"ned b% ose ava. &he si"nature thereon $as testified to b% $itnessEduardo Romualde! no$ 1ecretar% of Finance/ as loo:in" #l i:e thesi"nature of ose ava.# Eduardo Romualde! $as ac2uainted $ith thehand$ritin" of ose ava, havin" received reports E3h. FF/, parts of $hich$ere in the hand$ritin" of ose ava #not less than three or four times# $hileose lava, $as a ban: e3aminer. *( E3hibit FF-( is a cardboard containin" a

list of boo:s re2uested b% ose ava $hile the latter $as detained in BilibidPrison. Buenaventura illanueva, to $hom the list $as "iven, testified thathe sa$ ava $ritin" the list on the cardboard. Dhat appears on E3hibit FF-(is certainl% a "enuine specimen of ava@s hand$ritin".

&he hand$ritin" of a person ma% be proved b% an% $itness $ho

believes it to be the hand$ritin" of such person, and has seen the person$rite. Evidence respectin" the hand$ritin" ma% also be "iven b%comparison, made b% the $itness or the court, $ith $ritin"s admitted ortreated as "enuine b% the part% a"ainst $hom the evidence is offered, orproved to be "enuine to the satisfaction of the 8ud"e. *) &he hand$ritin"e3pert $ho made the comparison in this case positivel% identified thehand$ritin" of ose ava on the documents presented as evidence a"ainstsaid appellant, speciall% the hand$ritten names of re"orio 1anta%ana,aston, aston 1ila%an, avino and re". *6

Appellant ose ava did not ta:e the $itness stand to testif% in his o$nbehalf. nstead, he presented $itnesses to testif% on his "ood moralcharacter, his stron" convictions and his "ood citi!enship. An accused,

ho$ever, is not entitled to an ac2uittal simpl% because of his previous "oodmoral character and e3emplar% conduct. Dhen a court believes that anaccused is "uilt% be%ond reasonable doubt of the crime char"ed, it mustconvict him not$ithstandin" evidence of his "ood moral character andprevious e3emplar% conduct. *

De find that the evidence adduced durin" the trial has proved be%ondreasonable doubt that appellant ose ava $as one of the top leaders of theCCP, and that he $as not onl% $or:in" to propa"ate the doctrine ofcommunism in the Philippines but $as actuall% promotin" an armed uprisin"a"ainst the overnment. 9e did not actuall% ta:e to the field and participatein the armed attac:s a"ainst constituted authorities, but in the positions thathe held in the CCP, he actuall% promoted, maintained, and even directed the

armed activities of the 9MB $hich $ere aimed at overthro$in" theovernment and implantin" a ne$ s%stem of "overnment in the Philippines. As eneral 1ecretar% of the CCP he si"ned, in his aliases, thecommunications or transmissions of the 1ecretariat to the 9MB and CCPleaders in the field. As De have stated in this opinion, there $as a tie-upbet$een the CCP and the 9MB, and that the 9MB $as the militar% arm ofthe CCP. &he CCP $ent under"round sometime in November *+6+. t $asprecisel% durin" the latter part of *+6+ and durin" the %ear *+> before thearrests of the accused in these five cases on 'ctober *5, *+>/ $hen the9MB $as most active in its armed operations a"ainst the overnment I ora"ainst the elements of the Arm%, the PC and the Police, and a"ainst publicofficials and even a"ainst civilians. &he evidence a"ainst appellant ava



sho$s that it $as in *+6+ and *+> $hen he, in his capacit% as one of thetop leaders of the CPP, activel% participated in the armed stru""le bein"carried on b% the 9MB b% sendin" directives and other communications tothe leaders of the 9MB and to the heads of the re"ional commands of theCPP $ho $ere operatin" in the field. 9e $as, in fact, one of the leaders ofthe rebellion. 9e planned the attac: for the November ?, *+>/ anniversar%

celebration, $hich $as to include the capture of to$ns near Manila and theli2uidation of enemies in the Cit% b% the different re"ional commands.

De a"ree $ith the findin" of the lo$er court that appellant ose avais "uilt% as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and heshould be punished accordin"l%.

(. !ppeal of #ederico 'autista

De find it conclusivel% sho$n b% the evidence that4

Appellant Federico Bautista had used, or $as :no$n under,

the aliases4 F. Pa%at, Fred, Freddie, and Fredin". 9e $as arrested b% theM1 a"ents and the police on 'ctober *5, *+> at 75) Pasa8e Rosario,Paco, Manila, alon" $ith his co-accused ose ava, 1imeon Rodri"ue!,ictorina . Rodri"ue! and Pedro icencio. 9e 8oined the CPP on Au"ust 5,*+6+. &estif%in" in his o$n behalf, he said that he 8oined the CPP because of the failure of the administration then to carr% out the terms of the Amnest%Proclamation $hich he helped to brin" aboutK and also because, of theouster of si3 members of Con"ress from the central u!on provinces $ho$ere elected in the *+67 elections, of the frauds and terrorism committed insubse2uent elections and the "raft and corruption in the "overnment.

9e $as a member of the National Finance Committee of the CPP, *7 of $hich committee Ramon Espiritu co-accused/ $as the chairman, and

1imeon Rodri"ue! co-accused/ $as a ran:in" member. As such member of the National Finance Committee part of his duties and responsibilities $asthe procurement of supplies, such as arms, ammunitions, medicine, officesupplies, clothin", etc., for the dissidents@ both of the CPP and of the 9MB/or"ani!ations in the field. 9e became a member of the Militar% Committee ofthe CPP, $ith special assi"nment as Chief of ntelli"ence, 9G. *? 9e $asalso assi"ned to, and e3ercised authorit% over, the armed forces AF 9MBQ/in Manila and suburbs, $hich $as called the Cit% Command. 9e also hadsupervisor% po$ers over the National Courier 0ivision. *5

&his appellant did not actuall% ta:e to the field and participated in thearmed operations of the 9MB, but he did staff $or: $hich to promote,

maintain and direct the operations of the 9MB. &hus, there $as presented inevidence a letter *+ $ritten b% this appellant to eo co-accused Cesareo&orres/, under date of ul% *>, *+>, transmittin" the latest part% decisionre"ardin" authori!ed dail% subsistence allo$ance of personnel of the CPPor"ans, ran"in" from P*.>> to P*.(>. Cesareo &orres is the head of the&echnical 'ffice in char"e of propa"anda. n a hand$ritten tabulation

prepared b% him,(>

$hich $as sort of a financial statement, there is sho$nan amount spent for communications and for intelli"ence. t appears that ofthe total income of P5,>>7.5> for April, Ma% and une *+>, (>T $asallotted for ammunitions and *>T for intelli"ence. &his financial statement,as finall% published, $as certified to b% ohnn% co-accused Ramon Espiritu/as head of the National Finance Committee, and audited and approved b%&omm% co-accused 9onofre Man"ila/. &his document once more indicatesclearl% that the 9MB $as bein" supported b% the CPP.

&here is a document labelled #Memorandum on ntelli"ence#, (* at%pe$ritten draft, $hich $as sho$n to bear the pencil hand$ritten insertionsand corrections made b% appellant Federico Bautista, indicatin" that thisdraft $as prepared b% him. Portion of this document reads4

Dithout deviatin" from the "eneral orientation of e3pandin"evenl% alon" the four branches of intelli"ence, *i& .4 Political,economic, cultural and militar%, the emphasis for the present is onmilitar% intelli"ence both strate"ic and tactical. &his is in conformit%$ith and in direct pursuance of the Part%@s pro"ram of #all fore3pansion and the armed stru""le.# &he mechanics of $restin"po$er $ill eventuall% be a militar% stru""le, $e must have acontinual basis b% $hich $e can estimate $hat the enem% intendsto do and the tenacit% $ith $hich the% $ill implement theseintentions sin"l% and collectivel%.

Appellant Federico Bautista $as identified $ith the hi"h councils of the

CPP. 9e attended Politburo conferences.((

Alon" $ith Ramon Espiritu andone Nicasio Pamintuan, he sat to tr%, and found "uilt%, one 0omin"o Clarin,a member of the 9MB &ri""er 12uad, $ho $as char"ed $ith havin"s2uealed re"ardin" the hold-up of the Naric in Pulilan. Appellant FedericoBautista had previousl% assi"ned Clarin to "uard ose ava. ()

De have carefull% studied the evidence for the prosecution anddefense, as $ell as the ar"ument of the counsel in the appellant@s brief, andDe believe that it is proved be%ond reasonable doubt that appellantFederico Bautista is one of the leaders of the rebellion 8ointl% underta:en b%the CPP and 9MB. De a"ree $ith the findin" of the lo$er court that this



appellant is "uilt% as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion,and he should be punished accordin"l%.

). !ppeal of #ederico Maclang

Appellant Federico Maclan" $as arrested on 'ctober *5, *+> b%a"ents of the M1 and the Manila Police at *+)5 nterior ?, Feli3 9uertas,Manila, alon" $ith ulita Rodri"ue! and Felipe En"reso I the latter t$obein" amon" those convicted b% the lo$er court in these five cases, butulita Rodri"ue! $ithdre$ her appeal. 9e used the aliases4 '. Beria, Eto,'libas, Manuel 1antos, Manuel 1anta Fe and Ambrosia Re%es.

&he evidence conclusivel% sho$s that this appellant is a ran:in"communist, and he $as responsible for the or"ani!ation of the CPP inManila and Ri!al. 9e issued directives, plans and instructions to the differentunits of the CPP in the field that $ere $or:in" in close collaboration $ith the9MB in the latter@s armed operations. B% his o$n testimon% he revealed thathe is a confirmed communist. 9e declared that he $as one of the or"ani!ersof the P=M a peasants@ or"ani!ation/ in u!on, that he became acommunist after stud%in" thorou"hl% the principles of communism in relationto the economic and political conditions of the countr%K that he believes inthe overthro$ of #imperialism# and the establishment of a #ne$ democrac%#in the Philippines.

t is sho$n b% the evidence that4

Appellant Maclan" 8oined the CPP sometime in *+)+K and he $as amember of the Politburo from *+66 up to the time of his arrest on 'ctober*5, *+>. (6

n the document labelled #Pa"tu%a sa 1arile#, sho$n to have been

$ritten b% him,(

it appears that he $as the Chief of the 'r"ani!ationalBureau 'B/ of the CPP from *+65 until the time of his arrest, and that as anor"ani!er he $as responsible for the or"ani!ation of the Re"ionalCommands Recos/ of the part%. 9e $as also one of the members of the1ecretariat, and as such he activel% participated in the deliberations anddecisions of the bod%.

n several letters of Enten" uis &aruc/ to him, $hich $ere identifieddurin" the trial, as $ell as in his letter to Enten", a cop% of $hich $as foundin his possession and $as identified b% him, (7 his membership in the1ecretariat is clearl% sho$n. As a member of the 1ecretariat he $as

assi"ned the supervision on all or"ani!ational matters, on the %outhproblems and activities, and also on militar% affairs. i:e$ise, he $asassi"ned supervision over the &rade <nion 0ivision &<0/ and the tradeunion stru""leK also he had supervision over the ne$s section of the &&1Kand he $as authori!ed b% the 1ecretariat to revie$ the decisions of theRe"ional Command REC'/ and, li:e appellant ose ava, onl% those

decisions $hich he did not approve $ere ta:en up b% the 1ecretariat.(?

Aschief of the 'r"ani!ational Bureau he issued, or approved the issuance of,circulars, plans, and directives to the different or"ans of the CPP. (5

&his appellant prepared the document entitled #mpiltras%on#. (+ n thisdocument he discussed the problems of infiltration and the methods ortechni2ues to be follo$ed b% part% members in infiltratin" "overnmentoffices, the armed forces, and the ran:s of anti-communist "roups, inconnection $ith the under"round $or: of the CPP and the 9MB. 9e alsoprepared #Pa:i:iba:a sa Pa"ani# )> $here he ur"ed the peasants to fi"ht forbi""er crop shares, and the $or:ers to fi"ht for better $a"es, pointin" outthat the "overnment cannot meet the demands of the $or:in" class so thatthe onl% alternative is to support the #People@s iberation Movement# and

effect chan"es throu"h armed stru""le. 9e $rote the #Pan"ata$anan an"=ampan%a sa Pa"pala$a: n" Atin" Patanim at Pa"palita$ sanuhi#. )* $here he states the polic% of the CPP re"ardin" the e3pansion ofthe production areas and the production of more crops to maintain andsupport the revolution and to prepare the masses for self-"overnment.

i:e$ise, he $rote the #An" =ompis:as%on#, a circular issued b% the'r"ani!ational Bureau 'B/, of $hich he $as the head, to all theor"ani!ational units of the CPP, e3plainin" the Part%@s theor% of confiscation.&his circular authori!es confiscation as a means to raise revenue for the#People@s iberation Movement#. &his circular lists the classes of individuals$ho are considered enemies of the revolution and $hose properties ma% beconfiscated. )(

Dhen this appellant $as arrested on 'ctober *5, *+>, there $erefound in his possession documents $hich indubitabl% sho$ the hi"hpositions that he occupied in the CPP and the direct connections that he had$ith the operations of the 9MB. &hus, there is E3hibit N-(, $hich is a partialreport of Reco ( re"ardin" militar% operations durin" the #Cr% of Balinta$a:#celebration. n this report are stated the simultaneous 9MB attac:s at CampMa:abulos, &arlac, and at Ara%at in the evenin" of Au"ust (, *+>. &hereare also E3hibits N-7-? $hich are the reports from Reco ( of the 9MBattac:s at barrio Capalad, Ara%at on 1eptember *(, *+>, and at 1an uison 1eptember *), *+>. &here $as found in his possession, $hen he $asarrested, a file cop% E3h. N-(>(/ of a letter addressed to his comrades in



Re"ional Command No. 6, dated 'ctober *6, *+>. &he ori"inal of this letter E3h. M-(+(/ $as found at *7>5-B Andalucia, apparentl% in transit throu"hthe National Courier 0ivision. t should be noted that it is in *7>5-B Andalucia $here 1alome Cru!, the Chairman of the National Courier0ivision, had her head2uarters. n this letter appellant Maclan" $rote4

received a letter to the 1EC from Com Bonifacio, PB1, R-, dated'ct. *>, *+>. Because of the ur"enc% and because the Comca is leavin" at*(4>> a.m. this da%, , as in char"e of militar% matters of the 1EC, in theabsence of the 1EC meetin" have rendered the follo$in" decision4

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

'R0ER4 hereb% order to R-6 to ta:e all action concernin"all the re2uests of the letter of Com. Bonifacio to the 1EC. Re8ectthe idea of sendin" bac: these deserters men and officers/ to R-and am "ivin" full authorit% to R-6 to arrest and tr% all these saiddeserters. All actions should be based on our militar% rulin"s.

&he letter of Comrade Bonifacio referred to in the above-2uoted letterof appellant Maclan" $as found in his possession at the time of his arrest. Acop% of this letter $as found in the possession of the appellant ose ava$hen the latter $as arrested at 75) Pasa8e Rosario, Paco, Manila, on'ctober *5, *+>. )) t $as sho$n durin" the trial that this letter of appellantMaclan" $as transcribed from the steno"raphic notes ta:en do$n b% ulitaRodri"ue! on her noteboo: E3h. M-)*-E/. &his ulita Rodri"ue! $or:ed asa cler: $ith appellant-Maclan", and she $as also arrested on 'ctober *5,*+> alon" $ith Maclan" and Felipe En"reso, another emplo%ee ofMaclan". Both ulita Rodri"ue! and Felipe En"reso $ere also accused inthese cases. &he authorit% of appellant Maclan" on militar% matters is mademanifest in the above-mentioned letter.

n another letter of appellant Maclan", $hich $as his repl% to the letter he received from one Plaridel, re"ardin" the plan for attac: on November ?,*+> celebration, )6 he said4

Re-celebration, am "lad that %ou are activel% preparin" toachieve the 1EC ob8ectives. De have no ob8ections on the to$nsthat %ou have stated includin" Mc%. 'ur onl% doubt here is Mr2n,because this is ver% near enem% camp, ho$ever, proceed to %ourpreparation and $e $ill help %ou on intelli"ence operations on saidlocalities. n this connection, $e have the opinion that Com. Pacin"

$ill cooperate $ith %ou in this tas: as $e have been informed thathe is comin" to %our place.

Re-re2uest on arms and ammos, $e are not %et in a positionto "ive %ou the assurance of aid, ho$ever, $e are dealin" $ith thesmu""lers to purchase these ammos to suppl% such operations.

Because it is not ver% sure, it $ill be better for the Recos tocooperate on the preparation of ammos.

&here are letters of appellant Maclan" to umin" 1alome Cru!/, oneof the accused, $hich $ere presented in evidence, $here he "ave herorders and instructions re"ardin" the dispatch of couriers to the re"ionalcommands and the activities of the National Courier 0ivision. ) 0ocuments$ere also presented, $hich appear to have been issued or approved b% the'r"ani!ational Bureau of $hich this appellant $as the chief, dealin" $ith themethods of improvin" the communication s%stem of the CPP. )7 All theseindicate that appellant Maclan" had also supervision over the NationalCourier 0ivision NC0/ of the CPP.

Appellant Maclan", in his defense, denied :no$led"e about the 9MBraids and ambushes. De find, ho$ever, over$helmin" evidence thatdisproves his claim. &he evidence clearl% sho$s that he participated directl%in plannin", coordinatin", supportin", and approvin" the 9MB raids, attac:sand ambushes. 9e $as a member of the 1ecretariat of the CPP andparticipated in its meetin"s. 9e $as in char"e of the militar% affairs of theCPPK he "ave orders to the Recos to attac: the "overnment forcesK heapproved the plans of attac: a"ainst the Cit% of Manila and to$ns aroundManila on November ?, *++K he received reports of 9MB raids and attac:s. All these ma:e him, in contemplation of la$, a leader of the rebellion.

&here is, to <s, no doubt that b% the hi"h positions he held in the CPP,appellant Federico Maclan" $as one of the leaders of the CPP that

promoted, maintained and directed the armed operations of the 9MB tooverthro$ the Philippine "overnment. De a"ree $ith the findin" of the lo$ercourt that this appellant is "uilt% as principal in the commission of the crimeof rebellion, and he should be punished accordin"l%.

6. !ppeal of Ramon $spiritu

Appellant Ramon Espiritu $as arrested b% the a"ents of the M1 andthe Manila Police on 'ctober *5, *+> at *7>5-B Andalucia 1treet, Manila,alon" $ith 1alome Cru!, Rosario da. de 1antos, Nat% Cru!, Aurora arcia,



amberto Ma"boo and osefina Adelan. 9e $as :no$n b%the alias #ohnn%#.

n his $ritten statement, )? he admitted that he $as a member of thePolitburo and the Chairman of the National Finance Committee of the CPP.&he evidence sho$s that he $as a member of the 1ecretariat of the CPP,

and he participated in the deliberations and decisions of that bod%. )5 9e $asalso one of the * members of the Militar% Committee MC/. )+ 9e $as thePolitburo and 1ecretariat 1upervisor of the National Courier 0ivision. 6> 9ehad been assi"ned to various important positions in the CPP, li:e thesupervision of &rade <nion 0ivision &<0/ and the trade union stru""le,to"ether $ith his co-accused Federico R. Maclan". 6* 9e $as also assi"nedto the Cit% Committee to reor"ani!e the Cit% Committee and the Cit%Command. 6( 9e $as li:e$ise assi"ned to supervise umin" co-accused1alome Cru!/ in ta:in" care of the sic: comrades comin" fromprovinces. 6) 9e attended meetin"s of the Communists and 9MB. 9e $asone of those $ho tried 9u: member 0omin"o Clarin, assi"ned to the &ri""er 12uad of the 9MB, and found him "uilt% of havin" s2uealed re"ardin" theholdup of the NARC at Pulilan. 66

n his defense appellant Espiritu testified that he had nothin" to do$ith the 9MB raids and ambushes. 1eemin"l%, to 8ustif% his membership inthe Communist Part%, this appellant discussed the "eneral histor% of laborand its unsavor% relations $ith capital, for $hich he blamed the feudaleconom% that had pervaded the economic life of the Filipino people. 9ecandidl% recounted his efforts in tr%in" to understand the cause of thepeople@s economic ills, and the efforts of labor unions in demandin" better$a"es and livin" conditions for laborers.

Considerin" the tie-up bet$een the CPP and the 9MB, there canhardl% be an% 2uestion that appellant Ramon Espiritu, member of thePolitburo, of the 1ecretariat, and of the Militar% Committee, of the CPP, had

activel% participated in promotin" and maintainin" the armed operations ofthe 9MB, alon" $ith top CPP leaders, ose ava, Federico Bautista,Federico Maclan", and others. De a"ree, also, $ith the findin" of the lo$ercourt that this appellant is "uilt% as principal in the commission of the crimeof rebellion, and he should be punished accordin"l%.

. !ppeal of Salome Cru&

Appellant 1alome Cru!, $ife of appellant Ramon Espiritu, $asarrested on 'ctober *5, *+> at *7>5-B, Andalucia 1t., Manila. 1he $as:no$n b% her t$o aliases4 umin", and luminada Calon8e in her $ritten

statement, she admitted that she $as the Chairman of the NationalCommunication 0ivision NC0/ of the CPP from November, *+6+ to Ma%,*+>. 6

0ocumentar% evidence sho$s her various positions in the CPP,namel%4 Actin" Chief of the Central Post of the Communications 0ivision and

in char"e of 1ub-PostsK n-char"e of CouriersK n-char"e of finance fromNovember, *+6+ to Ma% *?, *+>K n-char"e of all Central Committee cadres$hen the% came to Manila for medical attentionK n-char"e of sic: comradescomin" from provinces under the supervision of ohnn% Ramon Espiritu/ inthe National CommissionK and Chairman of the 9ospital roup to ta:e careof the sic: and $ounded from the Cit% and provinces. 67

&he evidence further sho$s that 1alome Cru! $rote several notesand;or documents sho$in" her activities in the National Communication0ivision, 9ospital roup and other part% or"ans. &hus, on ul% 6, *+>, shemade hand$ritten notes on # 1ub-Posts# containin" names aliases/ ofre"ular and irre"ular couriers of REC' * to ?, 0ist. No. and Pan"asinanKon ul% , *+>, she also made notes on #Re"ular na 0atin" at alis n" m"a

=orriers sa NC0 napunta sa ba$at Recos#, $hich sho$ the dates of arrivalsand departures of the couriers for Recos * to ? 0ist. No. 6 Pan"asinan andCaviteK on Ma% , *+> she $rote a letter to ohnn% Ramon Espiritu/informin" the latter of the arrival and departure of couriers of REC' * andthe availabilit% for distribution of the April *( and )> issues of &&1K she also$rote letters to Beria co-accused Federico Maclan"/, Pa%at and Fred co-accused Federico Bautista/, and Bertin" co-accused amberto Ma"boo/,re"ardin" couriers and the activities of the National Communication 0ivisionNC0/. 6? 1he also made hand$ritten notes on the National Communication0ivision NC0/ Consolidated Report, sho$in" the income and e3pensesfrom Ma% * to Ma% *?, *+> of the Central Post and the 'utpostsK and aletter to Charin" co-accused Rosario C. da. de 1antos/ on Ma% *?, *+>instructin" the latter to chec: up the 1ub-Posts. 65

n her brief, appellant 1alome Cru! claimed, amon" other thin"s, thatthe trial court erred in convictin" her as principal, despite the fact that herparticipation $as onl% on inconse2uential details, and her "uilt had not beenestablished be%ond reasonable doubt.

&here is no evidence to sho$ that appellant 1alome Cru! actuall% too:part in the raids, attac:s and ambushes perpetrated b% the 9MB. t cannotbe said, ho$ever, that her role in the plan to overthro$ the overnment $asinconse2uential, she havin" been in char"e of communications, transmittin"orders and directives of the Politburo and 1ecretariat to the 9MB in the field



until Ma% *+>K she bein" in char"e of couriers, ma:in" notes of re"ular andirre"ular couriers, their arrivals and departuresK she bein" in char"e of the9ospital "roup to ta:e care of the sic: and $ounded from the cit% andprovinces. &hese facts sho$ that she $as cooperatin" activel% in promotin"and maintainin" the armed activities of the 9MB, considerin" the tie-upbet$een the CPP and the 9MB. &he maintenance of communications

bet$een the top leaders of the CPP and the units operatin" in the field isver% essential in the success of the rebellion. t is in this connection that thisappellant pla%ed a ver% important role.

De a"ree $ith the findin" of the lo$er court that appellant 1alomeCru! is "uilt% as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, andshe should be punished accordin"l%.

7. !ppeal of Rosario C. 3da. de Santos

Appellant Rosario C. da. de 1antos $as arrested b% the a"ents ofthe M1 and the Manila Police, to"ether $ith co-accused Ramon Espiritu,1alome Cru!, Nat% Cru!, Aurora arcia, amberto Ma"boo, and osefina

Adelan, in these five cases, at *7>5-B Andalucia, 1ampaloc, Manila, on'ctober *5, *+>.

&he evidence sho$s that4

Appellant Rosario C. da. de 1antos uses the alias #Charin"#. n hertestimon%, ho$ever, she claims that her real name is Aurelia Ca%etano. 1he$as desi"nated b% the 1ecretariat of the CPP n-char"e of 'utpost of theNational Communication 0ivision, $ith the dut% to maintain discipline amon"couriers comin" from $ithout. 6+ 1he $or:ed under 1alome Cru! umin"/$ho $as the Chairman of the National Communications 0ivision NC0/ ofthe CPP. &his appellant $as in char"e of chec:in" the irre"ular couriers forRe"ional Commands, *, (, ), 6, and Pan"asinan. > 1he $as a staffmember of the NC0, and she participated in the NC0 meetin"s, too: do$nminutes, and rendered reports. 1he made reports to the head of the NC0.'ne such report sa%s4 *

Naisasa"a$an" maa%os na pa"tan""ap sa lahat n"dumatin" at maa%os na pa"alis n" couriers.

Another report $as that one she made on ul% *(, *+>, about theoutpost4 (

a/ Reco *, means of communication still "ood and ( couriersarrived une ( and departed ul% 6.

b/ Reco (, I &he road is still clear and the couriers of Pan"asinan$ere alread% established there, thru Com. Pipin".

c/ Reco ) I &he road is difficult that is the reason $h% the Post at1an ose is no lon"er used but that of 1an Rafael.

d/ Reco 6 I &he road is difficult connection severed but 0-6 isalread% connected. E3h. *+-*7(/.

As chief of the 'utpost, she made, on Au"ust *+, *+>, the follo$in"report4 )

a/ Reco * I Couriers did not arrive, so no report.

b/ Reco ( I Couriers arrived as the PC are out dail% in the field ....

c/ Reco ) I Road is also difficult.

d/ Reco 6 I Road is not difficult, but no definite Post for thecouriers.

e/ 0istrict No. 6 I ( $ee:s no arrival of couriers but specialcouriers in Com. Amat no$ under arrest/ arrived on *( ul% @>.

f/ Cavite I 0id not arrive last 1unda% $hile the a"reement $as1aturda%.

n a letter to her co-accused umin" 1alome Cru!/, she stated thatshe :ne$ the circumstances surroundin" the :illin", and the murderers ofNorberto casiano, Ma%or of Bulacan. 6 1he even mentioned that she metthe deceased@s brother in a school house in Malolos, Bulacan, and that shehad to hide her face behind her umbrella in order to avoid bein" reco"ni!ed.

arious documents $ere sho$n durin" the trial $hich $ere $ritten b%her, and that the% $ere $ritten durin" meetin"s of the leaders of the CPP.



n her defense, this appellant testified that her co-accused RamonEspiritu re2uested her to sta% $ith him as a household help $ith a salar% ofP*>.>> a monthK that besides preparin" food, she $as also assi"ned thedut% of recordin" the letters delivered to and received at that placeK that herreal name is Aurelia Ca%etano, but she $as usin" the name of Rosario C.da. de 1antos because she $as a $anted $oman b% the apanese durin"

the occupation for havin" aided the "uerillas, and she $as :no$n b% thatname amon" her friends even after the liberation. 1he admitted that thename #Charin"# $as hers, but claimed that she did not :no$ the persons$ritin" to her and that the% $ere $ritin" to her because she $as the oneal$a%s in the house.

De find it proven that this appellant $as a staff member of theNational Courier or Communication/ 0ivision of the CPP, and that shechec:ed and made reports on the arrival and dispatch of couriers. &he lo$er court declared her "uilt% as principal in the commission of the crime ofrebellion. n 'ur appraisal of the evidence, ho$ever, De find that she $asmerel% e3ecutin" the orders or commands of others $ho are superior to herin the or"ani!ational set-up of the CPP. Considerin" that her activities too:

place $hile the CPP $as under"round, and durin" the period $hen thearmed operations of the 9MB $ere ta:in" place, De find her "uilt% as amere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion under thesecond para"raph of Article *) of the Revised Penal Code, and should bepunished accordin"l%.

?. !ppeal of !ngel 'a0ing

Appellant An"el Ba:in" $as arrested b% the a"ents of the M1 and ofthe Manila Police in his office at Room >6 1amanillo Buildin", Escolta,Manila, on 'ctober *+, *+>, alon" $ith Marciano de eon $ho is also oneof the accused in these cases. 9is house at No. **5 Cali3to 0a%co, Paco,Manila, $as also raided. From his office and his residence man% boo:s,

documents, and other papers $ere sei!ed, $hich proved that this appellant$as a confirmed communist and $as havin" close connections $ith leadersof the CPP. 1ome of the boo:s found in his residence are4 #&he &hird FiveJear Plan# b% . MolotovK #Reminiscence of enin# b% C. et:inK Mar3 andEn"els 1elected correspondence/K #9eroic enin-"rad#K #&heor% of the A"rarian Guestion enin/K #1talin# . . R., amesK #Constitution of the=ir"his 1oviet 1ocialist Republic#K #&he Class 1tru""le in France#K#Bio"raphical Compilation of Communist eaders outside the 1oviet<nions#, etc. &here are also found readin" materials labelled4 #Comparative'utlines of Communism and Capitalism sho$in" advanta"es of communisticideolo"%#K #Blue Record containin" outline of the &aruc stor%# this containsdraft of &aruc stor% for filmin" and publication/K #Political Econom%#

t%pe$ritten I this $as sho$n to be used as te3t for 9MB studies/K #1talinand the National Colonial Guestion# b% ohn Bla:eK etc.

De find, b% the evidence, that4

Appellant An"el Ba:in" used the aliases4 Ba%an, B. and Bori!. 9e 8oined the communist part% in April, *+6+, althou"h he had been identified$ith the leaders of the CPP since the earl% part of *+66. 7 9e had beenassociated $ith top communists li:e or"e Friane!a, uis &aruc, FedericoBautista, 1imeon Rodri"ue! and ose ava. Dhen the &echnolo"ical roup&/ of the CPP $as or"ani!ed, it $as placed under the immediatesupervision of Bori! An"el Ba:in"/ althou"h the final supervision $as underre" ose ava/. ?

n the meetin" of the 1ecretariat of the CPP on 1eptember (+, *+>,the attendance of Bori! in the meetin" of the Militar% Committee $asdiscussed, and it appears in the record4 #Com. Bori! is a competenttechnolo"ist, is read% to "o out and read% to sta% in the field as the Part%decides.# 5 &he 1ecretariat of the CPP assi"ned him to head the 1pecial

Darfare 0ivision under the 9G. + As head of the 1pecial Darfare 0ivisionunder the 9G, appellant An"el Ba:in" $rote a memorandum for the1ecretariat re"ardin" the immediate installation of a $ireless communications%stem bet$een the 9G and the 1ecretariat. 1ome para"raphs of thememorandum read as follo$s4

Briefl% the main point to be dealt $ith pertains to e2uipment,its procurement, technical description, distribution, installation,operation and maintenanceK technical personnel $ho $ill participatein the solution of the technical aspects of the problemsK the Codes%stem, $hich is an inte"ral part of the DC1K and the non-technicalimplications of the problems.

Because of the under"round nature of the s%stem, severalproblems not met in the le"al installation of this s%stem creep to thesurface. &he e2uipment itself is conditioned b% abnormal factors$hich are not met ordinaril%K the personnel is difficult to enlistK andthe installation, operation and maintenance of the s%stem becomeundul% handicapped and difficult to perform.

1ince the transmittin" unit in Manila cannot be full% used$ithout ris:in" its immediate detection b% the enem%, transmissionsto the field from 9G Manila/ ma% partl% be coursed thru thele"itimate radio stations. &his has al$a%s been done before, and



there is no reason $h% it cannot be developed no$. &he essentialre2uirements for this measure $ould be4

*/ A cadre to infiltrate the Corps of broadcasters inthe radio stations, $hich ma% be assi"ned to the Culturalroup. &his cadre should "et a position as broadcaster at

specific hours, either as station announcer or ne$scasterfor the ne$spaper or time bu%ers at the stationsK

(/ &his cadre should be "iven a code s%stem thru$hich $hatever messa"e to be transmitted, ma% becoursed.7>

Appellant Ba:in" admitted havin" prepared the fore"oin" draft buthe claimed, in his testimon%, that draft $as prepared $a% bac: inMa% *+65 at the re2uest of one or"e Frianesa $ho $as a ran:in"member of the CCP. t appears, ho$ever, that $hen his office in the1amanillo buildin" $as raided b% the a"ents of the M1 and theManila Police this document $as found torn inside a $aste bas:et,

and this circumstance made the lo$er court conclude that he $rotethe draft not in *+65 but shortl% before the raid on 'ctober *+,*+>. &he lo$er court further pointed out that his e3planation $asfilms% because of the numerous evidence $hich sho$ed that hesupervised the &echnolo"ical roup and the 1pecial Darfare0ivision at the 9G of the CCP. De a"ree $ith the conclusions ofthe lo$er court in this respect.

Besides there $ere found in his office at Room >61amanillo Buildin" at the time of the raid several <.1. Arm%technical manuals on Cipher 1%stems and Advanced Militar%Cr%pto"raph%, and these manuals have connection $ith therecommendation in his memorandum for the use of the code

s%stem for transmittin" messa"es thru le"itimate radio stations.

&here are still other documents $hich clearl% indicateappellant Ba:in"@s cooperation $ith the leaders of the CCP in thefurtherance of the plan to sei!e po$er. n the document, mar:edE3hibit -))s, he made the follo$in" statement4

&o forestall errors in the plannin" for the future, thetrainin" of leadin" Cadres as economists should beintensified. t is more than li:el% that b% the time CCP

sei!ed po$er, the stru""le in Asia shall have beenresolved.

&here $as found in the possession of 1imeon . Rodri"ue!one of the appellants in these cases/, the document mar:edE3hibit '-(6 $here it appears that appellant An"el Ba:in"

ac:no$led"ed havin" received from the National FinanceCommittee of the CCP the sum of P6.>> for the &echnolo"icalroup &/ of $hich he $as a member. 1imeon . Rodri"ue! is amember of the National Finance Committee of the CCP.

At the time of his arrest, appellant An"el Ba:in" $as a forei"naffairs officer in the 0epartment of Forei"n Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines. &hat he $as usin" his position in the 0epartment of Forei"n Affairs for intelli"ence $or: I and the lo$er court calls thisa manifestation of his #schemin" mind# I ma% be "athered from$hat he $rote in his diar% as follo$s4

&here $as a tactical error in m% transfer to the ne$

office room. &he office $as supposed to be occupied b%ambassadors and hi"h-ran:in" officials. transferred to it$ithout insurin" m% hold on the important men of thedepartment. &hus opened m% flan: and left m% rearunprotected, and made m%self e3tremel% vulnerable.

Because of this, find m%self unprepared to handlethat problem. Peter ordered Guiamco that be transferredbac: to $here came from.

also for"ot that the important thin" to remember isthe unbro:en and stead% ....

AB E3h. -?5e/.

&here is another document found in Ba:in"@s residence at*5-B Cali3to 0a%co $hich $as admitted b% him to be his. &hisdocument contains entries $hich indicate his dealin"s $ith the CCPor"ani!ations and its members. &he entries are as follo$s4

NFC ....................................... P(>>



raciano . ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..

raciano . ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..

Apolinario ........................... ............

&alas .......................................

1R .......................................

Abe ........................... ............

odon" . ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..

a:e .......................................

Mario .......................................

aman" . ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..

&he #NFC# has been sho$n to stand for National Finance Committee

of the CCP, and #1R# for 1imeon . Rodri"ue!, a member of the NFC ofthe CCP, $ho is also one of the appellants in the present cases. &here $eresheets of blan: papers sei!ed from ?6( Colorado 1treet, Manila, the printin"office of &&1 and the $or:in" place of Cesario &orres, also one of theappellants in the present cases, bearin" si"natures of #Apolinario#, #MarianoP. Bal"os# and #uis &aruc#.

Considerin" the facts De have hereinabove-stated, De have no doubtin our mind that appellant An"el Ba:in" as a confirmed communist, hadaided in the efforts of the leaders of the CPP to promote and maintain thearmed operations of the 9MB to overthro$ the "overnment. &he lo$er courtfound this appellant "uilt% as principal in the commission of the crime ofrebellion. De have noted that the role pla%ed b% this appellant $as that of a

technician or adviser. Considerin" that he participated in the rebellion effortsof the CPP $hile he $as holdin" a public office. De a"ree $ith the findin" ofthe lo$er court, and he should be punished under the first para"raph of Article *) of the Revised Penal Code.

5. !ppeal of Lamberto Magboo

Appellant amberto Ma"boo $as arrested b% the a"ents of the M1and of the Manila Police at *7>5-B Andalucia, Manila, on 'ctober *5, *+>,alon" $ith the accused Ramon Espiritu, 1alome Cru!, Rosario C. da. de1antos, Nat% Cru!, Aurora arcia and osefina Adelan. t must be noted that

the place, *7>5-B Andalucia, is the head2uarters of 1alome Cru! $ho $asthe Chief of the National Courier 0ivision of the CPP. &he evidence sho$sthat the other persons $ho $ere arrested in that place namel%, Nat% Cru!,and osefina Adelan $or:ed as couriers under 1alome Cru!. Rosario C.da. de 1antos also $or:ed under 1alome Cru! as in-char"e of outpost. Aurora arcia $as emplo%ed b% her aunt, Rosario da. de 1antos, as a

maid and that she $as sellin" the &&1.


Appellant amberto Ma"boo used the aliases Bertin" and Eddie. 9eadmitted that he $as a courier of the CPP, and that he actuall% mailed lettersand pac:a"es at the Bureau of Posts and at the post office at the FarEastern <niversit%K and he delivered letters, bo3es of medicines, canned"oods, lanterns, and shoes, from *7>5-B Andalucia 1treet house ofappellant 1alome Cru!/ to the a Mallorca Bus station, to the &B station, at Altura 1treet, 1ta. Mesa, at 0ivisoria 1treet, and at Celeridad 1treet inPasa% Cit%. 7* 9e $as a chec:er of the re"ular and irre"ular couriers ofRecos *, 6, , 7 and ? and 0ist. No. 6 Pan"asinan, and $as also a special

courier of 0ist. No. 6, c;o Reco 6.7(

Considerin" that the Recos are the units of the CPP that are operatin"$ith the 9MB in the field, such that the person $ho acts as courier from thehead2uarters of the National Courier 0ivision of the CPP in Manila to theseRecos $as actuall% $or:in" and cooperatin" $ith the armed operations tooverthro$ the "overnment. De find appellant amberto Ma"boo "uilt% as amere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion, under thesecond para"raph of Article *) of the Revised Penal Code, and he shouldbe punished accordin"l%.

+. !ppeal of 1icanor Ra&on Sr.

Appellant Nicanor Ra!on, 1r., :no$n also b% the alias Elias Rubi,admitted that he had been a member of the CPP since ul% *, *+6. Amon"the documents found at *7>5-B Andalucia, 1ampaloc, Manila, $as the cadrere"istration and oath of this appellant as a member of the CPP. 9e $as thesecretar% of Baran"a% 1ECC'M 1ectional Committee/ of the 0istrict of&ondo, and later rose to the position of treasurer in the same committee. 9ehelped in distributin" the &&1, the official or"an of the CPP. 7)

&he record does not sho$ that this appellant had testified in hisbehalf, nor presented an% evidence in his defense. n his brief before thisCourt, ho$ever, this appellant claims that the lo$er court erred in findin" him



"uilt% as an accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion, noevidence havin" been adduced to sho$ that he had performed an% act,$hich $ould constitute a cooperation in promotin" the rebellion 8ointl%underta:en b% the CPP and the 9MB.

De find merit in the contention of this appellant. De find that the

evidence a"ainst this appellant onl% sho$s that he is a member of theCommunist Part%, and that he had been secretar% and later treasurer of1ECC'M of the 0istrict of &ondo. &here is no evidence re"ardin" hisactual participation in the efforts of the leaders of the CPP and the 9MB topromote the rebellion. 9is havin" distributed the &&1, the official or"an ofthe CPP, is at most an act in the cate"or% of a propa"anda $hich in itselfdoes not sho$ that he advocated actual uprisin" a"ainst the overnment. thas not been sho$n that he collaborated in the efforts to advance the causeof the rebellion. &he fact that he is a member of the Communist Part% and anofficer of one of its committees is not a sufficient basis for declarin" him"uilt% as an accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion.

n the case of (eople *s. ernande& , . R. Nos. -7>(-7>(7 this

Court held4

... De do not believe that mere membership in theCommunist Part% or in the C' renders the members liable eitherof rebellion or of conspirac% to commit rebellion, because meremembership and nothin" more merel% implied advocac% of abstracttheor% or principle $ithout an% action bein" induced thereb%K andthat such advocac% becomes criminal onl% if it is coupled $ithaction or advocac% of action, namel% actual rebellion or conspirac%to commit rebellion, or acts conducive thereto or evincin" the same.

De, therefore, declare that appellant Nicanor Ra!on, 1r. is not "uilt%as an accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion, nor can De

hold him "uilt% of the crime of conspirac% to commit rebellion. 9e should,therefore, be absolved of the char"e a"ainst him in the information.

Neither can De find him "uilt% of havin" committed a crime under the Anti-1ubversion a$ R.A. No. *?>>/ $hich outla$s the Communist Part% ofthe Philippines, because this la$ $as enacted onl% in the %ear *+?,$hereas the information a"ainst this appellant $as filed on 'ctober (?,*+>. A"ain, in the case of (eople *s. ernande& , supra, this Court held4

'n the other hand, Rep. Act *?>>, :no$n as the Anti-1ubversion Act, $hich penali!es membership in an% or"ani!ation or

association committed to subvert the overnment, cannot beapplied to the appellants because said Act $as approved on une(>, *+? and $as not in force at the time of the commission of theacts char"ed a"ainst appellants committed *+6-*+>/K the Anti-1ubversion Act punishes participation or membership in anor"ani!ation committed to overthro$ the dul% constituted

overnment, a crime distinct from that of actual rebellion $ith $hichappellants are char"ed.

*>. !ppeal of Marcos Medina

Appellant Marcos Medina $as arrested b% M1 a"ents on 'ctober *?,*+> at *>(5-B, Gue!on Boulevard. 9e used the alias 9i$ara. 9e admittedin his $ritten statement 76 that he $as a member of the 9u:balahap12uadron ( $ith head2uarters at =andatin", CandabaK that he became acorporal of the 9u:s in *+66K and that he $as a member of the'r"ani!ational Committee, Reco 6, a"una, from *+67 to *+6+. 7 n *+6+,he studied at the Central nstitute of &echnolo"%, and $hile stud%in", he usedto help 9MB couriers %dia alias of Alicia ille"as/, and Celon" alias of

Marcelino Calma/ in carr%in" thin"s for deliver% to Commander RE of Reco6. 77n his testimon% he stated that the 'r"ani!ational Committee, of $hichhe $as a member, had the dut% to "o to the barrios to teach and convincethe people to 8oin the 9MB. 7?

&estif%in" in his behalf, this appellant said that he $as maltreated atCamp Murph% to ma:e him si"n the statement mar:ed as E3hibits EE to EE-6. 75 9o$ever, 1otero Morales, $ho $as the one $ho investi"ated him,testified that Marcos Medina did not complain of an% maltreatment $hen he$as investi"ated. 7+

De do not a"ree $ith the findin" of the lo$er court that this appellantis "uilt% as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. &here is no

evidence that he actuall% participated in an% of the raids and ambushesalle"ed in the information althou"h he admitted that he $as a 9u:. &heevidence sho$s that he simpl% helped 9MB couriers. De hold, ho$ever, thathis bein" a member of the 9MB is a sufficient basis to find him "uilt% of thecrime of conspirac% to commit rebellion, punishable under Article *)7 of theRevised Penal Code. n the case of (eople *s. ernande& supra, this Courtheld4.

'n the other hand, membership in the 9MB 9u:balahap/,implies participation in an actual uprisin" or rebellion to secure, asthe 9u:s pretend, the liberation of the peasants and laborin" class



from thraldom. B% membership in the 9MB, one alread% advocatesuprisin" and the use of force, and b% such membership he a"reesor conspires that force be used to secure the ends of the part%.1uch membership, therefore, even if there is nothin" more, rendersthe member "uilt% of conspirac% to commit rebellion punishable b%la$.

And $hen a 9u: member, not content $ith his membership,does an%thin" to promote the ends of the rebellion li:e solicitin"contributions, or actin" as courier, he thereb% becomes "uilt% ofconspirac%, unless he ta:es to the field and 8oins in the rebellion ofuprisin", in $hich latter case he commits rebellion.

De therefore declare appellant Marcos Medina "uilt% of the crime ofconspirac% to commit rebellion, and he should be punished accordin"l%.

**. !ppeal of Cesario ,orres

Appellant Cesario &orres $as arrested b% the a"ents of the M1 andthe Manila Police on 'ctober *+, *+> at his residence at ?6( Colorado 1t.,Manila, alon" $ith his $ife, Rosenda Canlas &orres, and his co-accused, Arturo Ba:in". From his house the a"ents sei!ed subversive documents,and articles includin" a t%pe$riter, a mimeo"raphin" machine,mimeo"raphin" in:, stencils, coupon bond papers. 1ome of these couponbond papers $ere blan: but bore the si"nature of uis M. &aruc.


Appellant Cesario &orres used the aliases4 eo and eodones, and he$as also :no$n as Cesario Jacat &orres. 9e admitted bein" a member ofthe 9MB and of the CPP, that he $as head of the &echnical 'ffice under the

Propa"anda Branch of the CPP, and as the head of that office he $as inchar"e of t%pin" and mimeo"raphin" the CPP documents and leaflets, andthe &&1 $hich $as the official or"an of the CPP. ?>

0ocuments $ere presented durin" the trial $hich clearl% prove thatthis appellant $as in re"ular communication $ith Federico Maclan", one ofthe top leaders of the CPP and of the rebellion. &hus, in one letter, hee3plained to Maclan" $h% the issue of the &&1 for the previous $ee: didnot come outK and in another letter he informed Maclan" that he $ould tr% toma:e the &&1 come out ever% 1unda% mornin". ?* n a letter to Maclan"dated April 7, *+>, he in2uired for the number of copies of #1uliranin n"

m"a Familia# that should be printedK and in another letter he $as re2uestin"from Maclan" P*5.6> for the printin" of 7>> copies of the #Mapa"pala%a#,the official or"an of the 9MB. ?( <sin" the name eodones, this appellant$rote subversive poems calculated to arouse popular support for the causeof the CPP and the 9MB. 'ne such poem, entitled #An" 0ala$an"pun"&aon Buha% n" P=P#, eulo"i!ed the CPP, advocated armed revolt a"ainst

the "overnment and the li2uidation of iberals, Nacionalistas, and priests.&he other poems $ere #umisin" =a =abataan#, #Mai:sin" =asa%sa%an n"=ilusan" Ma"bubu:id sa Filipinas#, #An" :a$alon" &aon" =aara$an n"9u:bon" Ma"papala%a n" Ba%an#, and #An" 1i"a$ n" Ba%an Api#. All thesepoems $ere published in the different issues of the &&1. ?)

De find that appellant Cesario &orres pla%ed a ver% vital role in thepromotion of the armed stru""le that $as 8ointl% prosecuted b% the CPP andthe 9MB. 9e $as admittedl% a member of both the CPP and the 9MB. 9ismembership $ith the 9MB alone is a sufficient basis to hold him "uilt% of thecrime of conspirin" to commit rebellion. De believe, ho$ever, that he didmore than to conspire $ith the leaders of the 9MB and the CPP to commitrebellion. 9e $as in char"e of the publication and circulation of the &&1$hich $as the official or"an the CPP, and of the #Mapa"pala%a# $hich $asthe official or"an of the 9MB. t is throu"h these t$o or"ans that the people$ere bein" aroused to support the armed stru""le a"ainst the "overnment.Dhile it is true that this appellant did not "o to the field to ta:e up arms, theprovocative poems and articles that he $rote and published in the officialor"ans of the CPP and the 9MB $ere 8ust as effective to prosecute therebellion as the "uns and other $eapons used b% the 9MB in the field.

De a"ree $ith the findin" of the lo$er court that this appellant is "uilt%as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should bepunished accordin"l%.

*(. !ppeal of !rturo 'a0ing

Appellant Arturo Ba:in" $as arrested b% the a"ents of M1 and theManila Police on 'ctober *+, *+> at ?6( Colorado 1t., Manila, alon" $ithhis co-accused Cesario &orres and the latter@s $ife, Rosenda Canlas &orres.9e is the nephe$ of appellant An"el Ba:in".

t is sho$n b% the evidence that4

Appellant Arturo Ba:in" used the aliases Red Bell, Eduardo 1antos, Arturo Calma and Ed. 9e became a member of the CPP in 0ecember*+6+. ?6 n Au"ust *+> he $as emplo%ed b% his co-accused Cesario &orres



as assistant in the publication center of the CPP at ?6( Colorado 1t., Manila.9e $as one of those assi"ned as t%pist in the Educational 0epartment of theCPP, it havin" been admitted b% him that the publication center $as underthe Educational 0epartment of the CPP. As assistant to Cesario &orres hehelped in the printin", mimeo"raphin" and distribution of the &&1, theofficial or"an of the CPPK as $ell as in the printin", mimeo"raphin" and

distribution of 9MB documents. 9is $or: included the procurement of officesupplies, and the :eepin" of records of CPP documents that had beenprinted and distributed to the different officials and or"ani!ational units of theCPP.? &his appellant had studied and finished the prescribed secondar%course of the Communist Part%, and $as "iven a certificate, #=atiba%an saPa"aaral#, attestin" to his havin" satisfactoril% completed such sub8ects asthe #9istor% of National iberation Movement#, #0iale:ti:a n" Materialismo#,#Political Econom%#, #Estado at 9ima"si:an#, and #An" Pa":a:atata" n"Partido#. ?7 B% his o$n declaration this appellant admitted havin" madestudies about communism, too: ri"id tests in order to be accepted to theCPP, and that he believed a communist "overnment should be implanted inthe Philippines. n his testimon%, he stated that he had developed a deep-seated hatred a"ainst the a"ents of the la$ because of the predator% actsthat $ere committed b% them on poor fishermen, and that on several

occasions, especiall% at various chec:points, he sa$ the harsh treatmentdone b% the Constabular% soldiers to civilians. 9e be$ailed the "raft andcorruption in the "overnment. ??

De have no doubt that this appellant is a confirmed communist, andthat he $as in full s%mpath% $ith the armed stru""le bein" promoted b% theleaders of the CPP and the 9MB in order to overthro$ the e3istin""overnment of the Philippines. <pon appraisal of the evidence, ho$ever, Decannot a"ree $ith the findin" of the lo$er court that this appellant is "uilt% asprincipal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. De find that he $as theassistant of appellant Cesario &orres, $ho $as entrusted $ith the publicationand distribution of the official or"ans of the CPP and the 9MB, as $ell as ofthe printin" and distribution of the documents of these t$o or"ani!ations.

Bein" an assistant of appellant Cesario &ores $hom De have declared to bea principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, De hold thatappellant Arturo Ba:in" is "uilt% as a mere participant in the commission ofthe crime of rebellion, under the second para"raph of the Article *) of theRevised Penal Code, and he should be punished accordin"l%.

*). !ppeal of Simeon G. Rodrigue&

Appellant 1imeon . Rodri"ue! $as arrested b% the a"ents of the M1and the Manila Polioe in his house at 75) Pasa8e Rosario, Paco, Manila, on

'ctober *5, *+>, alon" $ith ose ava, Federico Bautista, ictorina .Rodri"ue! and Pedro icencio.


Appellant 1imeon . Rodri"ue! used t$o aliases4 a:indanum

a2uindanum/ and 1amm%. 9e $as a member of the National FinanceCommittee of the CPP since 'ctober (*, *+6+. ?5 Dhen he $as arrested on'ctober *5, *+> there $ere found in his house some P6(,)?7.>> in papercurrenc% in different denominations. 'f the mone% that $as found in hishouse, it $as conclusivel% sho$n that 7 P*>>-bills, 7> P>-bills, P*6.>> inPNB circulatin" notes and )*>.>> formed part of the mone% that $ere ta:enfrom the office of the Provincial &reasurer in 1ta. Cru!, a"una, $hen the9MB raided that to$n in the ni"ht of Au"ust (7, *+>. De have stated at theearl% part of this opinion that on the ni"ht of Au"ust (7, *+> some 6>> 9u:sraided 1ta. Cru!. &he cashier of the office of the Provincial &reasurer $asforced b% the 9u:s at "un point to open the vault of the provincial treasur%from $hich the 9u:s too: some P5>,7>>.>>. t happened that the Provincial&reasurer of a"una, Mr. Balbino =abi"tin", had a record of the serial

numbers of the paper mone% that $as deposited in the provincial treasur%$hich $ere ta:en b% the 9u:s, and after that raid Mr. =abi"tin" even issueda $arnin" to the public about the loss of the mone% I mentionin" in the$arnin" the serial numbers of the mone% ta:en. t $as found out that theserial numbers of the 7 P*>>-bills, of the 7> P>-bills, of the P*6.>> PNBcirculatin" notes, and of the )*> found in the house of appellant Rodri"ue!tallied $ith the serial numbers of the paper currenc% that $as ta:en from theprovincial treasur% of a"una. &his appellant, in his testimon%, declared thatthe paper mone% $hose serial numbers tallied $ith those paper mone% that$ere ta:en from the provincial t reasur% of a"una formed part of the mone%that ose ava one of the appellant herein/ brou"ht to his house.Considerin" the hi"h position that appellant ava held in the CPP and thefact that the armed operations of the 9MB $ere promoted and directed b%the 1ecretariat of the CPP, of $hich ava $as a member, and the fact thatappellant 1imeon Rodri"ue! $as a member of the National FinanceCommittee, it is eas% to understand $h% ose ava brou"ht to this appellantthat mone% $hich $as ta:en b% the 9MB from the provincial treasur% ofa"una. 1i"nificantl%, one of the evidence presented durin" the trial $as areceipt, dated 'ctober , *+>, si"ned b% a:indanum in favor of Com.&orres Casto Ale8andrino, a $ell-:no$n 9MB commander/ of Reco 6,ac:no$led"in" receipt of P)(,?6>, )*>, and P*6 in PNB circulatin"notes. ?+ t could be that ose ava made Rodri"ue! prepare that receipt$hen he delivered the mone%, and the receipt $as intended to be sent toCom. &orres to assure the latter that the mone% $as delivered to Rodri"ue!.&hat receipt $as amon" the papers sei!ed $hen these appellants $ere



arrested. &his is a clear indication of the connection of appellant 1imeonRodri"ue! to the armed operations of the 9MB, and the coordinated $or: ofthe leaders of the CPP and of the 9MB in the armed uprisin".

&here are other documents clearl% indicatin" the connection ofappellant Rodri"ue! to the 9MB commanders in the field4 */ &here is a

letter dated 'ctober *), *+>, addressed to Com. a:indanum 1imeon .Rodri"ue!/ comin" from Com. &orres Casto Ale8andrino/ $herein the latterac:no$led"ed receipt of the letter and articles that $ere sent to him b% Com.a:indanum. &his letter also instructed a:indanum not to send the $atchesto Reco 6. 5> (/ &here is another letter dated 'ctober *), *+>, of Com.anao, addressed to Com. a:indanum, $herein the former $asre2uisitionin" from a:indanum a radio set. n this letter Com. anao, amon"others, said4 #De $ould ma:e the attempt to provide %ou $ith an e3tra rationof camote leaves $hen %ou visit us a"ain#. 5* &his statement in the letter ofCom. anao indicates that appellant 1imeon Rodri"ue! used to visit the menin the field. )/ &here is still another letter that came from Com. Amor,addressed to Com. a:indanum, $herein the former ac:no$led"ed receiptof all the thin"s, includin" a radio tester costin" P)>.>>, that the latter hadsent to him. 5(6/ &hen there is a letter $ritten b% herein appellant to Com.Beria Federico Maclan"/ statin" that he delivered the tester to Com. Re" inthe absence from camp of Com. &orres. 5) / &here is a receipt sho$in" thatappellant Rodri"ue! si"ned in the name of the National Finance Committee,ac:no$led"in" receipt of the amount of P?>.>>. 56 7/ &here is still another receipt si"ned b% herein appellant ac:no$led"in" receipt of P*,(>> from theNational Finance Committee, $hich $as prepared for accountin"purposes. 5

&his appellant admitted, in his testimon%, his close association $ithose ava. 9e also said that he $as inclined to believe in the tenets ofcommunism and the use of force in case the people decide to ta:e politicalpo$er in their hands.

De have carefull% e3amined the evidence of the prosecution a"ainstthis appellant, and also the evidence $hich he presented in his defense Iconsistin" of his o$n testimon% mainl% den%in" the positive evidencesa"ainst him and of the testimonies of $itnesses vouchin" for his "oodcharacter and the fact that he $as a businessman I and De have arrived atthe conclusion that this appellant is one of the top communist leaders $hohad promoted and maintained the armed operations of the 9MB in the field.De a"ree $ith the findin" of the lo$er court that appellant 1imeon .Rodri"ue! is "uilt% as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellionKand he should be punished accordin"l%.

*6. !ppeal of Marciano de Leon

Appellant Marciano de eon $as arrested, to"ether $ith An"el Ba:in"at Room >6, 1amanillo Buildin", Escolta, Manila, on 'ctober *+, *+>. 9eused the aliases Mar and Marcial. At the time of his arrest, he $or:ed in thePersonnel 1ection at the 9ead2uarters of the Philippine Constabular%. 9e

admitted havin" supplied his co-accused Federico Bautista $ith "overnmentdocuments and confidential information re"ardin" the 9MB from the PC9ead2uarters. &hese $ere4 57

*. Memorandum to all PC Commander re 9u: infiltration.

(. Memorandum to all PC Commanders re o%alt% 1tatus of all PCpersonnel.

). Memorandum on PC-Civilian Relations.

6. ist of PC A"ents and their addresses.

. ist of persons $anted b% the PC.

7. etter on the sub8ect4 #Jello$ ournalism.#

?. <.1. Arm% &echnical Manuals and Field Manuals.

De concur $ith $hat the lo$er court said about this appellant4#Considerin" the nature of the documents he admitted in his confession tohave been furnished b% him to Federico Bautista, the contents of hisconfession and the accessibilit% to him of those documents b% reason of hisposition in the Personnel 1ection of the Philippine Constabular%, the Court is

inclined to believe that he also too: part in the conspirac% to overthro$ the"overnment b% armed stru""le and did his bit b% furnishin" FedericoBautista $ith information and records re"ardin" the 9MB activitiesobtainable from the PC 9ead2uarters.# De do not a"ree $ith the lo$ercourt, ho$ever, that this appellant is "uilt% as principal in the commission ofthe crime of rebellion. Considerin" the top position of Federico Bautista inthe CPP hierarch%, it cannot be denied that appellant Marciano de eon, b%"ivin" the information hereinabove stated to Federico Bautista, hadcooperated or helped in the prosecution of the armed rebellion. De hold thisappellant "uilt% as a mere participant in the commission of the crime ofrebellion, under the second para"raph of Article *) of the Revised PenalCode, and should be punished accordin"l%.



*. !ppeal of onofre Mangila


Appellant 9onofre Man"ila $as arrested on November ((, *+> at(* everi!a, Pasa% Cit%. 9e used thealiases Miller and &omm%. 9e

admitted bein" a communist I in fact, he said he $as proud to be acommunist I and bein" a member of the Central Committee of the CPP. 9e$as also a member of the &rade <nion 0ivision &<0/ of the CPP. n themeetin" of the 1ecretariat of the CPP on 1eptember *, *+>, appellantMan"ila $as appointed auditor of funds and boo:s of account of the NationalFinance Commission NFC/. 5? 9e actuall% audited the financial statementsof the NFC for the months of April, Ma% and une, *+>K Man"ila@s auditin"of the National Finance Commission@s account $as approved b% the1ecretariat in its meetin" of 1eptember ((, *+>. 9e $as also the chairmanof the or"ani!ational department '0/ for Manila under the 'r"ani!ationalBureau of the CPP. 55

&here is no 2uestion that this appellant is one of the top men in the

hierarch% of the CPP. 9e $as a member of the Central Committee $hich isthe bod% second onl% to the National Con"ress of the CPP. Dhen theNational Con"ress is not in session it is this Central Committee that ma:esdecisions for the part%. Dhile testif%in" in his behalf he revealed his stron"communist part% discipline $hen he declined to reveal, upon bein" cross-e3amined, the identit% of the other members of the Central Committee, andthe members of the National Con"ress and of the Politburo. Dhile testif%in"he $as ver% outspo:en in indictin" the e3istin" economic and social order inthe countr%, and asserted that it is onl% under the Communist Part% $hen thelaborin" class can e3pect a bri"ht future.

0urin" the trial letters si"ned b% #Miller# or #&omm%#, $ere presentedin evidence. &hose $ere letters addressed to ohnn% Ramon Espiritu/ and

to umin" 1alome Cru!/ concernin" financial matters, meetin"s and otheractivities in the CPP. 5+

Considerin" that it is the CPP, as De have sho$n, that promotes andmaintains the armed operations of the 9MB a"ainst the "overnment, andconsiderin" that appellant 9onofre Man"ila is a member of the CentralCommittee $hich is the most po$erful bod% in the CPP $hen its NationalCon"ress is not in session, and considerin" further that this appellant $aseven appointed auditor to audit the funds of the CPP, De believe that thisappellant is one of the principal leaders of the rebellion as char"ed in theinformation. De a"ree $ith the findin" of the lo$er court that appellant

9onofre Man"ila is "uilt% as principal in the commission of the crime ofrebellion and that he should be punished accordin"l%.

*7. !ppeal of Cenon 'unga"


Appellant Cenon Bun"a% $as arrested b% icente Roco of the (>thBC& and some members of the Manila Police on November (*, *+>, at 6)(sabel, 1ampaloc, Manila. &his appellant used the alias Rufin".

n $ritten statements, he admitted that he 8oined the 9u:s in *+67,and at the time of his arrest on November (*, *+> he $as the commanderof the 9MB in the province of Batan"as and the -) of Field Command FC/No. ) of the 9MB. Dhile testif%in" in open court, he declared that as the9MB commander he had *,)>> full% armed men e2uivalent to 6 9MBbattalions/ under him, and as a 9u: commander he had been receivin"directives from the hi"her authorities of the 9MB. 9e revealed that uis&aruc $as the 1upreme of the 9MB. +> 9e also admitted his directparticipation in an encounter bet$een the 9MB and the "overnment forcesin Plaridel, Bulacan, on March (?, *+>. 9e stated that in obedience to anorder from Re"ional Command No. 6, he led his unit in the raid of 1an PabloCit% on March (+, *+>, resultin" in the death of Ma8. Alicbusan. 9e said thattheir purpose $as to overthro$ the "overnment b% force, and to establish the#Ne$ 0emocrac%.# +* 9e also declared that he 8oined the 9u:s in *+6(because of povert%K that his parents $ere tenants in 9acienda Baha% Pareat Candaba, Pampan"aK that he stopped schoolin" after the ?th "rade inorder to help support his parents and ten brothers and sistersK that reali!in"the miserable conditions of the tenants, he 8oined the #A"uman 0in"&alapa"obra# A0&/, the aim of $hich $as the amelioration of the tenantsKthat throu"h this or"ani!ation he reali!ed that the tenants must or"ani!e topromote their $elfare and to prevent the abuses of landlords. 9e further

declared that in spite of the sacrifices of the 9u:s for ) %ears durin" theapanese occupation, the 9u:s representin" the countless tenants, $erei"nored b% the <.1. armed forces and b% the Common$ealth overnmentKand havin" been harassed, persecuted and frustrated in their aims toameliorate the condition of the masses, the 9u:s $ent under"round. Accordin" to him the 9u:s felt more persecuted $hen uis &aruc, thesuccessful con"ressional candidate in *+67 of the 0emocratic Alliance, $asdenied his seat in Con"ress, and that the% lost faith in the "overnment dueto the frauds and terrorism perpetrated in the elections that follo$ed. +(



Appellant Bun"a% admitted that the 9MB had to use force in order tochan"e the administration. 9e said that the men under him used arms "ivenb% the American soldiers and Communist s%mpathi!ers. 9e also revealedthat $hile he $as the 9u: commander at Cavite, he had t$o encounters $ith"overnment forces, one at Alian", Malabon on Februar% *5, *+>K and theother at Alfonso, Cavite, on Februar% ((, *+>. &hese admissions $ere full%corroborated b% Ben8amin Advincula, a ran:in" officer and 1ecretar% of RecoCommand No. 6 of the 9MB and b% Ronald 0orse%, a former 9u:member. +)

&here is no doubt that Cenon Bun"a%, as 9u: commander, $as also aleader in the rebellion. De a"ree $ith the findin" of the lo$er court that thisappellant is "uilt% as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion,and he should be punished accordin"l%.

*?. !ppeal of (edro ,. 3icencio

Appellant Pedro &. icencio $as arrested on 'ctober *5, *+> at 75)Pasa8e Rosario, Paco, Manila, alon" $ith ose ava, Federico Bautista,

1imeon Rodri"ue! and ictorina Rodri"ue!. 9e $as also :no$n as Pedrin".n a statement, si"ned b% him at Camp Murph% after his arrest, he admittedthat he used to run errands, brin"in" foodstuffs, medicines and othersupplies intended for the 9MB, and also deliverin" pac:a"es that $erelabelled R-*, R-(, R-), R-6 and R-, $hich stood for Reco-*, Reco-(, etc.,respectivel%, to Andalucia 1treet $here Rosario da. de 1antos receivedthem. +6 De have found, in this decision, that Rosario da. de 1antos $as$or:in" under 1alome Cru! $ho $as the chairman of the NationalCommunications 0ivision NC0/ of the CPP, and that she $as in char"e ofan outpost, chec:in" the irre"ular couriers for Recos *, (, ), 6, andPan"asinan, and she $as sta%in" at *7>5-B Andalucia, 1ampaloc, Manila.

&estif%in" in his o$n behalf, appellant icencio denied bein" a

member of the CPP nor of the 9MB, althou"h he stated that at the t ime ofhis arrest, he $as stud%in" the principles of communism, and that hes%mpathi!ed $ith the 9u:s. At the time of his arrest this appellant $as (>%ears old, and he $as a first %ear iberal Arts student. 9e admitted in histestimon% that he delivered to An"el Ba:in" notes sent b% 1imeonRodri"ue!. +

Dhile it is not sho$n that this appellant actuall% too: part in the armedoperations of the 9MB, his havin" delivered foodstuffs, medicines and othersupplies $hich $ere intended for the 9MB, and his havin" deliveredpac:a"es to Rosario da. de 1antos $ho $as in char"e of the outpost

$here couriers "o to deliver, or to "et, letters or articles intended for REC'1in the field, clearl% indicate that this appellant $as activel% cooperatin" in theefforts of those promotin" the rebellion. Bein" (> %ears of a"e and a colle"estudent, it can be e3pected that he :ne$ that he $as doin" somethin" forthe communists and the 9u:s. More so, because he $as livin" $ith 1imeon. Rodri"ue!, one of the top leaders of the CPP. 9e admitted havin"delivered notes sent b% 1imeon Rodri"ue! to An"el Ba:in", another topleader of the CPP. &he house of Rodri"ue! $as the meetin" place of CPPleaders.la+phil./et

De find this appellant "uilt% as a mere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion, under the second para"raph of Article *) of theRevised Penal Code, and he should be punished accordin"l%.

*5. !ppeal of #elipe $ngreso

Appellant Felipe En"reso $as arrested on 'ctober *5, *+> at *+)5nt. ?, Feli3 9uertas 1t., Manila, alon" $ith Federico Maclan" and ulitaRodri"ue!. At the time of his arrest, he $as about * %ears old, and $as

livin" as a housebo% of one :no$n to him as Ambrosio Re%es.

t appears that in a $ritten statement that he si"ned before the M1a"ents, this appellant admitted havin" delivered letters to Mr. EspirituRamon Espiritu/ at Andalucia 1t., ManilaK to Cesar Cesario &orres/ at ?6(Colorado, ManilaK and to aston ose ava/ at Celeridad 1t., Pasa% Cit%. talso appears in that statement that he used to "et the &&1 from Colorado1t. residence of Cesario &orres and the CPP publication center/ to deliverthem to Andalucia 1treet residence of Ramon Espiritu, 1alome Cru! andRosario da. de 1antos/ and retained one cop% for Ambrosio Re%es. +7

&estif%in" in his behalf, appellant En"reso declared that before hisarrest he never :ne$ that his master, Ambrosio Re%es, is the accusedFederico Maclan". 9e came to :no$ his master to be Federico Maclan" onl%$hen the% $ere alread% detained at Muntin"lupa. +?

<pon a careful stud% of the evidence a"ainst this appellant, De havecome to the conclusion that his "uilt has not been proved be%ondreasonable doubt. &his appellant $as onl% around * %ears old. De accepthis testimon% that he did not :no$ that his master $as Federico Maclan",and that all the time he :ne$ him to be Ambrosio Re%es. 9e $as simpl% ahousebo% of Maclan". 9e had to obe% orders to deliver letters or delivercopies of &&1. &here is no sho$in" that he :ne$ the contents of the lettersthat he $as made to deliver, or that he :ne$ the addressees to be



communists. &he 1olicitor eneral recommends the ac2uittal of thisappellant upon the "round that there is no sufficient evidence to sho$ hiscriminal intent. De a"ree $ith the 1olicitor eneral. De, therefore, ac2uitappellant Felipe En"reso of the char"e a"ainst him in the information.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

N ED 'F &9E F'RE'N, the decision appealed from shouldbe, as it is hereb%, modified, as follo$s4

*. n G.R. 1o. L-4564

Appellants ose ava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclan", RamonEspiritu, 1alome Cru! and An"el Ba:in" are found "uilt% as principals in thecommission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first para"raph of Article *) of the Revised Penal Code, and ever% one of them is hereb%sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ten *>/ %ears of prision ma"or , and afine of P(>,>>>, $ith the accessories provided b% la$, but $ithout subsidiar%imprisonment in case of insolvenc%, and to pa% their proportionate shares ofthe costs.

Appellant Rosario C. da. de 1antos is found "uilt% as a participant inthe commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second para"raphof Article *) of the Revised Penal Code, and she is hereb% sentenced tosuffer imprisonment of seven ?/ %ears and four 6/ months of prisionma"or $ith the accessories provided b% la$, and to pa% her proportionateshare of the costs.

(. n G.R. 1o. L-4567

Appellant Cesario &orres is found "uilt% as principal in the commission

of the crime of simple rebellion under the first para"raph of Article *) of theRevised Penal Code, and he is hereb% sentenced to suffer imprisonment often *>/ %ears of prision ma"or , and a fine of P(>,>>>, $ith the accessoriesprovided b% la$, but $ithout subsidiar% imprisonment in case of insolvenc%,and to pa% his proportionate share of the costs.

Appellants amberto Ma"boo and Arturo Ba:in" are found "uilt% asparticipants in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under thesecond para"raph of Article *) of the Revised Penal Code, and ever% oneof them is hereb% sentenced to suffer imprisonment of seven ?/ %ears and

four 6/ months of prision ma%or, $ith the accessories provided b% la$, andto pa% their proportionate shares of the costs.

Appellant Marcos Medina is found "uilt% of the crime of conspirac% tocommit rebellion under Article *)7 of the Revised Penal Code, and he ishereb% sentenced to suffer imprisonment of five / %ears, four 6/ months,

and t$ent% (>/ da%s of prision correccional and a fine of P(,>>>, $ith theaccessories provided b% la$, $ith subsidiar% imprisonment in case ofinsolvenc%, and to pa% his proportionate share of the costs.

Appellant Nicanor Ra!on, 1r. is hereb% ac2uitted, $ith costs de oficio.

). n G.R. 1o. L-4568

Appellant 1imeon . Rodri"ue! is found "uilt% as principal in thecommission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first para"raph of Article *) of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereb% sentenced to sufferimprisonment of ten *>/ %ears of prision ma"or and a fine of P(>,>>>, $iththe accessories provided b% la$, but $ithout subsidiar% imprisonment incase of insolvenc%, and to pa% his proportionate share of the costs.

Appellant Marciano de eon is found "uilt% as a participant in thecommission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second para"raph of Article *) of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereb% sentenced to sufferimprisonment of seven ?/ %ears and four 6/ months of prision ma"or $iththe accessories provided b% la$, and to pa% his proportionate share of thecosts.

6. n G.R. 1o. L-4566

Appellants 9onofre Man"ila and 1imeon Bun"a% are found "uilt% as

principals in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the firstpara"raph of Article *) of the Revised Penal Code, and ever% one of themis sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ten *'/ %ears of prision ma"or , anda fine of P(>,>>>, $ith the accessories provided b% la$, but $ithoutsubsidiar% imprisonment in case of insolvenc%, and to pa% their proportionateshares of the costs.

. n G.R. 1o. L-4569

Appellant Pedro &. icencio is found "uilt% as a participant in thecommission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second para"raph of



Article *) of the Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to sufferimprisonment of seven ?/ %ears and four 6/ months of prision ma"or , $iththe accessories provided b% la$, and to pa% his proportionate share of thecosts.

Appellant Felipe En"reso is hereb% ac2uitted, $ith costs de oficio.

&he Court ta:es 8udicial notice, that, e3cept for appellants ambertoMa"boo, Nicanor Ra!on, 1r., Pedro &. icencio, and Felipe En"reso $ho areon provisional libert% under bail, all the rest of these appellants are detained,and their detention dates bac: as of Au"ust, 'ctober or November, of the%ear *+>, as the case ma% be. &he 0irector of the Bureau of Prisons ishereb% directed to determine the period of detention that should be creditedto the appellants $ho are under detention, pursuant to the provisions of Article (+ of the Revised Penal Code, and to release immediatel% thoseappellants $ho are entitled to be credited $ith the period of their detentione2ual to the penalt% of imprisonment imposed upon them in this decision. tis so ordered.

Re"es J.'.L. )i&on Ma0alintal Sanche& and Capistrano JJ. concur.,eehan0ee and 'arredo JJ. too0 no part.Concepcion C.J. and Castro J. are on lea*e.

Se&#r#te O&'$'o$(

FERN"N)O, J., concurrin"4

8oin m% collea"ues in "ivin" assent to the $ell-$ritten and e3haustiveopinion of ustice aldivar, spea:in" for this Court, distin"uished as it is b%"rasp of the relevant facts meticulousl% e3amined and narrated $ith clarit%as $ell as of the controllin" le"al principles that call for application.Particularl% note$orth% to m% mind is the re-affirmation of our doctrinein (eople *. ernande& , * $ith the present Chief ustice, $ho penned theopinion, stressin" the primac% of libert% even $hen the offense char"ed isa"ainst the securit% of the state.

Precisel% because of $hat deem to be hi"h estate that must beaccorded libert% even in times of trouble and distress, feel that additional$ords mi"ht not be amiss. t $ould appear to me that the prosecution of theaccused herein havin" been started at a time $hen there appeared to be aclear dan"er to democratic institutions, the belief seemed to have "ainedcredence in certain circles that as far as these accused $ere concerned,there $as no need to appl% $ith ri"or their constitutional ri"hts.

&hat to me is a false thesis. t implies the $ea:ness of a democrac% todefend itself democraticall%. <nder such vie$, a "overnment could be sparedthe threat from internal subversion, but $hat is saved is no lon"er the"overnment contemplated b% the framers and the people $ho adopted theConstitution.

Dell has ustice Ben"!on observed in his separate opinion in 1a*a *.Gatmaitan4 ( #And in m% opinion, one of the surest means to ease theuprisin" is a sincere demonstration of this overnment@s adherence to theprinciples of the Constitution to"ether $ith an impartial application thereof toall citi!ens, $hether dissidents or not. et the rebels have no reason to

apprehend that their comrades no$ under custod% are bein" railroaded intoMuntin"lupa, $ithout benefit of those fundamental privile"es $hich thee3perience of the a"es has deemed essential for the protection of allpersons accused of crime before the tribunals of 8ustice. ive them theassurance that the 8udiciar%, ever mindful of its sacred mission $ill not, thrufault% co"itation or misplaced devotion, uphold an% doubtful claims ofovernmental po$er in diminution of individual ri"hts, but $ill al$a%s clin" tothe principle uttered lon" a"o b% Chief ustice Marshall that $hen in doubtas to the construction of the Constitution, #the Courts $ill favor personallibert%# ...#

ustice &uason in another opinion rendered in that case $ould appl%the constitutional ri"hts $ith undeviatin" ri"idit%4 #&o the plea that the securit%

of the 1tate $ould be 8eopardi!ed b% the release of the defendants on bail,the ans$er is that the e3istence of dan"er is never a 8ustification for courts totamper $ith the fundamental ri"hts e3pressl% "ranted b% the Constitution.&hese ri"hts are immutable, infle3ible, %ieldin" to no pressure ofconvenience, e3pedienc%, or the so-called #8udicial statesmanship.# &hele"islature itself cannot infrin"e them, and no court conscious of itsresponsibilities and limitations $ould do so. f the Bill of Ri"hts areincompatible $ith stable "overnment and a menace to the Nation, let theConstitution be amended, or abolished. t is trite to sa% that, $hile theConstitution stands, the courts of 8ustice as the repositor% of civil libert% arebound to protect and maintain undiluted individual ri"hts.# )



t is e3tremel% difficult to find cause for disa"reement $ith the abovevie$s for the% accord $ith the fundamental postulate of this overnment,namel%, that the Constitution is supreme and this Court, as its ultimate"uardian, is called upon to appl% its provisions in the determination of actualcases and controversies before it. Dell has it been observed that it e3istsprecisel% to assure the protection of the citi!en and the maintenance of hisconstitutional ri"hts. &he e3ercise of this official dut% re2uires that it "iveseffect to the supreme la$ even to the e3tent in clear cases of settin" asidele"islative and e3ecutive action.

&his is not to sa% that the 8udicial process ta:es place in a social void.&he e3istence of an emer"enc% is not a factor to be rec:oned $ith li"htl%.&he tas: of this Court in ad8ustin" or harmoni!in" individual ri"hts $ith thesafet% of the state, ordinaril% one of utmost delicac%, then becomes evenmore formidable. &he fact remains ho$ever that the re"ime established hereis one of libert% of 8ustice and of democrac%. Belief in the theor% of libert% isnot merel% an echo of a discredited past. t remains a fi"htin" faith. t is aproclamation of the vitalit% of the democratic process. t rests on theconviction deepl% and profoundl% held that "iven the choice, a free people$ill prefer to remain free.

&his is not to den% that force has to be met $ith force. &his is not toden% that the courts are not to hamper the efforts of the e3ecutive a"enciesto put do$n subversion in $hatever form it ma% manifest itself and $hereverit ma% ma:e its appearance. &his is not to den% that on the e3ecutive and itsa"ents is conferred the authorit% to cope $ith rebellious activities. 1uchauthorit% must be e2ual to the "rave responsibilit% thus confrontin" it.

Nonetheless, even under such circumstances, our dut% is clear. t isnot for us to abdicate our constitutional function. De cannot, 8ust because ofthe dan"er sanction ever% step the e3ecutive authorities mi"ht ta:e. f $e doso, $e $ould lend comfort to the ver% forces see:in" to undermine the

"overnment. &he% can assert, and $ith plausibilit%, that the Constitution nolon"er obtains. t is precisel% in times of emer"enc% that the role of the 8udiciar% as "uardian of constitutional ri"hts becomes more pressin" andinescapable, if the faith and confidence of the people in democrac% in actionare to be preserved unimpaired.

1ince to m% mind such a vie$ is implicit in the opinion of usticealdivar, even if not e3pressl% avo$ed, %ield m% concurrence.

Foot$ote(

*.R. Nos. -7>( and -7>(7, ul% *5, *+7K ++ Phil. *, (>,6*, 6?, *.

(++ Phil. *, ).

) Appellee@s brief, pp. *5>-*5(.

6People vs. Camerino, -*)656, Ma% (>, *+7>K <. 1. vs. Cernias,*> Phil. 75(.

<. 1. vs. 1antia"o, 6* Phil. ?+).

7People vs. 9ernande!, supraK People vs. Roma"osa, supraK andPeople vs. 1antos, supra.

?&an t vs. 1un nsurance 'ffice, * Phil. (*(.

5Pa"es 7*-7(, t.s.n., Reconstitution.

+Pa"es )), )?, t.s.n., Reconstitution.

*>Pa"es 6(+-6)(, t.s.n., ol. .

**Pa"e 65, t.s.n., ol. .

*(Pa"e 6*>, t.s.n., ol. .

*)1ec. (), Rule *)(, Rules of Court.

*6Pa"e 76, t.s.n., ol. K Cho Chun Chac vs. arcia, 6? Phil. )>K Ale8andrino vs. Re%es, ) Phil. +?6.

* Anderson vs. 1tate, ?( a. App. 65?K )6 1.E. (d/ **>K <nderhillCriminal Evidence, th ed., ol. , p. 6)>.

*7E3hibit '-*)-*6, par. *.



*?E3hibit '-*>7-*>?, par. (.

*5E3hibit M-*?(7.

*+E3hibit =-(>7.

(>E3hibit '-5(-5+.

(*E3hibit M-*5>7-*5*).

((Pa"e 6(+, t.s.n., ol. .

()Pa"es 6))-6)6, t.s.n., ol. .

(6Pa"e 5>), t.s.n., ol. .

(E3hs. N-??K N-(*(.

(7E3hs. M-6(*-6((K N-7>.

(?E3h. M-)*-)(, par. *5.

(5E3h. '-6?)-6?6.

(+E3h. M-(5>-(5).

)>E3h. M-(65-(*.

)*E3h. N-(?-(75.

)(E3hs. N-(7+-(?*K M-*5.

))E3hs. N-*?-*?7K '-65>.

)6E3h. =-*)+7-*)+?.

)E3hs. M-(66-(6K M-(5-(7?K M-(7+.

)7E3hs. N-(7-(75K M-*?>.

)?E3hibit CC.

)5E3hs. '-+*-+(, par. (K '-)>5-)>+, par. (K pa"es >>-*(, t.s.n.,ol. .

)+E3h. '-*>7-*>?.

6>E3hibit M-(-(7.

6*E3hibits '-++-*>*, par. )K '-)*(, par. 6.

6(E3hibit '-))6-))?, par. 7.

6)E3hibit '-76), par. +.

66

Pa"es 6))-6)6, t.s.n., ol. .

6E3hibits 99-6 to 99-5K pa"e ?5>, t.s.n., ol. .

67E3hibits -)*5K M-*))>-*))*K M-(*K '-66*-666K '-76), par. +K '-))6-))?, par. *>K pa"es *+, (7, t.s.n., ol. .

6?E3hibits M-*(6*K M-*(6(-*(6)K M-*(75-*(7+K M-(65, M-(7>K '-66+K M-*(?, M-*(?> and M-*)7+.

65E3hibits M-*)*>K M-*)7-*)77.

6+E3hibits C-)*5, par. *K N-)-)5.

>E3hibits M-*(6*, M-*(, M-*?6), M-*?7-*?75.

*E3hibit M-6.

(E3hibit M-*+-*7(.

)E3hibits M-*(-*).



6E3hibit M-5>.

Pa"es ??5-??+, t.s.n., ol. K E3hibits M-6, M-7, M-?, M-5,M-7>, M-7*, M-7.

7E3hibit '-(5*, par. 7.

?E3hibit '-)*7-)*?, par. ).

5E3hibit M-)-)5, par. *.

+E3hibit M-)-)5, par. *.

7>E3hibit -))-P to -)) Pa. 1ee also E3hibits -))-c and -))-d$hich had been sho$n to be Ba:in"@s hand$ritten outline of hisMEM' on the DC1.

7*E3hibits to -*>.

7(E3hibits M-*(6*, M-*(, M-*(66, M-*(+>-+*K Pa"es 7?*- 7?),t.s.n., ol. .

7)E3hibits 00-*, M-*6()K Pa"es 76-7?, t.s.n., ol. .

76E3hibits EE to EE-6.

7Pa"e ?6), t.s.n., ol. .

77E3hibits EE-( to EE-).

7?Pa"es 7?-75, t.s.n., ol. .

75Pa"es ?66-?67, t.s.n., ol. .

7+Pa"e 77+, t.s.n., ol. .

?>E3hibits --6K Pa"es 7(7-7(5 t.s.n., ol. .

?*E3hibits M-*>6 and M-*>7.

?(E3hibits M-*?* and M-*?(.

?)E3hibits =-*5+, M-*77>, M-*777 to M-*7?>.

?6E3hibit D-), par. ?.

?E3hibits D, D-*, =-(>5K Pa"e 56*, t.s.n. ol. .

?7E3hibit -*6.

??Pa"es 5)6-5)7, t.s.n., ol. .

?5E3hibit '-*)-*6, par. *.

?+E3hibits '-?(, '-?(a-*, '-?( ab-*.

5>E3hibit '-??.

5*E3hibit '-?5.

5(E3hibit '-?7.

5)E3hibit '->->7.

56E3hibit M-*>.

5E3hibit '-+.

57E3hibits BB to BB-?, p. 7*>, t.s.n, ol. .

5?E3hibit '-76), par. 5K Pa"es ?*, ?(+, t.s.n., ol. .

55E3hibits to -**.

5+E3hibits M-?>, M-*6?(-*6?6.

+>E3hibits to -?K Pa"es 7?>, 7?), t.s.n. ol. .



+*Pa"e 6(5, t.s.n., ol. K Pa"e 7?*, t.s.n., ol .

+( Pa"es 7)6-), 7)?, 777, 75+, t.s.n., ol. .

+)Pa"es 775-7?>, t.s.n., ol. .

+6Pa"es *?(, *+7, *+5, t.s.n., ol. K Pa"e 75(, t.s.n., ol. KPa"es ) and 7, t.s.n., ol. .

+E3hibits to -?K Pa"es ) and 7, t.s.n., ol. .

+7E3hibits 11 to 11-).

+?Pa"es 7(>-7(), t.s.n., ol. .

FERNAN0', ., concurrin"4

*

Phil. * *+5/.

(+> Phil. *?( *+*/.

) At p. (>7.




Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 9/16 $e , 1990

IN THE M"TTER OF THE PETITION FOR H"E"S CORPUS. U"N

PONCE ENRILE, petitionervs.U)GE "IME S"L"!"R 2Pre('%'$3 %3e o4 t5e Re3'o$# Tr'# Cort

o4 eo$ C't+ r. 10:, SENIOR ST"TE PROSECUTOR "URELIO

TR"MPE, PROSECUTOR FER)IN"N) R. "ES"MIS, "N) CIT;

"SSIST"NT CIT; PROSECUTOR EULOGIO M"N"NUIL, N"TION"L

URE"U OF INESTIG"TION )IRECTOR "LFRE)O LIM, RIG. GEN.

E)G"R )UL" TORRES 2S&er'$te$%e$t o4 t5e Nort5er$ Po'ce )'(tr'ct<

"N)= OR "N; "N) "LL PERSONS >HO M"; H"E "CTU"L CUSTO);

OER THE PERSON OF U"N PONCE ENRILE,respondents.

G.R. No. 9/16* $e , 1990

SPS. REECCO E. P"NLILIO "N) ERLIN)" E. P"NLILIO,petitioners,vs.PROSECUTORS FERN"N)O )E LEON, "URELIO C. TR"MPE,

FFR)IN"N) R. "ES"MIS, "N) EULOGIO C. M"N"NUIL, #$% HON.

"IME >. S"L"!"R, R., '$ 5'( c#&#c't+ #( Pre('%'$3 %3e, Re3'o$#

Tr'# Cort, eo$ C't+, r#$c5 10, respondents.

N"R"S", J .?

&hirt%-four %ears after it $rote histor% into our criminal 8urisprudence, (eople

*s. ernande& 1 once more ta:es center sta"e as the focus of aconfrontation at la$ that $ould re-e3amine, if not the validit% of its doctrine,the limits of its applicabilit%. &o be sure, the intervenin" period sa$ a numberof similar cases / that too: issue $ith the rulin"-all $ith a mar:ed lac: ofsuccess-but none, it $ould Beem, $here season and circumstance hadmore effectivel% conspired to attract $ide public attention and e3citeimpassioned debate, even amon" la%menK none, certainl%, $hich has seen2uite the :ind and ran"e of ar"uments that are no$ brou"ht to bear on thesame 2uestion.

&he facts are not in dispute. n the afternoon of Februar% (?, *++>, 1enateMinorit% Floor eader uan Ponce Enrile $as arrested b% la$ enforcementofficers led b% 0irector Alfredo im of the National Bureau of nvesti"ation onthe stren"th of a $arrant issued b% 9on. aime 1ala!ar of the Re"ional &rialCourt of Gue!on Cit% Branch *>), in Criminal Case No. +>*>+6*. &he$arrant had issued on an information si"ned and earlier that da% filed b% apanel of prosecutors composed of 1enior 1tate Prosecutor Aurelio C.&rampe, 1tate Prosecutor Ferdinand R. Abesamis and Assistant Cit%Prosecutor Eulo"io Manan2uil, r., char"in" 1enator Enrile, the spousesRebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and re"orio 9onasan $ith the crime ofrebellion $ith murder and multiple frustrated murder alle"edl% committeddurin" the period of the failed coup attempt from November (+ to 0ecember*>, *++>. 1enator Enrile $as ta:en to and held overni"ht at the NBhead2uarters on &aft Avenue, Manila, $ithout bail, none havin" beenrecommended in the information and none fi3ed in the arrest $arrant. &hefollo$in" mornin", Februar% (5, *++>, he $as brou"ht to Camp &omas=arin"al in Gue!on Cit% $here he $as "iven over to the custod% of the1uperintendent of the Northern Police 0istrict, Bri". en. Ed"ardo 0ula&orres.



'n the same date of Februar% (5, *++>, 1enator Enrile, throu"h counsel,filed the petition for habeas corpusherein $hich $as follo$ed b% asupplemental petition filed on March (, *++>/, alle"in" that he $as deprivedof his constitutional ri"hts in bein", or havin" been4

a/ held to ans$er for criminal offense $hich does note3ist in the statute boo:sK

b/ char"ed $ith a criminal offense in an information for$hich no complaint $as initiall% filed or preliminar%investi"ation $as conducted, hence $as denied dueprocessK

c/ denied his ri"ht to bailK and

d/ arrested and detained on the stren"th of a $arrantissued $ithout the 8ud"e $ho issued it first havin"

personall% determined the e3istence of probable cause. *

&he Court issued the $rit pra%ed for, returnable March , *++> and set theplea for hearin" on March 7, *++>. 'n March , *++>, the 1olicitor eneralfiled a consolidated return 6 for the respondents in this case and in .R. No.+(*76 7 Dhich had been contemporaneousl% but separatel% filed b% t$o of1enator Enrile@s co-accused, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, andraised similar 2uestions. 1aid return ur"ed that the petitioners@ case does notfall $ithin the ernande& rulin" because-and this is puttin" it ver% simpl%-theinformation in ernande& char"ed murders and other common crimescommitted as a necessar" means for the commission of rebellion$hereas

the information a"ainst 1en. Enrile et al. char"ed murder and frustratedmurder committed on the occasion but not in furtherance of

rebellion. 1tated other$ise, the 1olicitor eneral $ould distin"uish bet$eenthe comple3 crime #delito comple8o#/ arisin" from an offense bein" anecessar% means for committin" another, $hich is referred to in the secondclause of Article 65, Revised Penal Code, and is the sub8ect ofthe ernande& rulin", and the compound crime #delito compuesto#/ arisin"from a sin"le act constitutin" t$o or more "rave or less "rave offensesreferred to in the first clause of the same para"raph, $ith

$hich ernande& $as not concerned and to $hich, therefore, it should notappl%.

&he parties $ere heard in oral ar"ument, as scheduled, on March 7, *++>,after $hich the Court issued its Resolution of the same date 8 "rantin"1enator Enrile and the Panlilio spouses provisional libert% conditioned upontheir filin", $ithin (6 hours from notice, cash or suret% bonds of P*>>,>>>.>>for 1enator Enrile/ and P(>>,>>>.>> for the Panlilios/, respectivel%. &heResolution stated that it $as issued $ithout pre8udice to a more e3tendedresolution on the matter of the provisional libert% of the petitioners andstressed that it $as not passin" upon the le"al issues raised in both cases.Four Members of the Court 9 voted a"ainst "rantin" bail to 1enator Enrile,and t$o 10 a"ainst "rantin" bail to the Panlilios.

&he Court no$ addresses those issues insofar as the% are raised andliti"ated in 1enator Enrile@s petition, .R. No. +(*7).

&he parties@ oral and $ritten pleas presented the Court $ith the follo$in"options4

a/ abandon ernande& and adopt the minorit% vie$e3pressed in the main dissent of ustice Montema%or insaid case that rebellion cannot absorb more seriouscrimes, and that under Article 65 of the Revised PenalCode rebellion ma% properl% be comple3ed $ith commonoffenses, so-calledK this option $as su""ested b% the1olicitor eneral in oral ar"ument althou"h it is not offeredin his $ritten pleadin"sK

b/ hold ernande& applicable onl% to offenses committedin furtherance, or as a necessar% means for thecommission, of rebellion, but not to acts committed in thecourse of a rebellion $hich also constitute #common#crimes of "rave or less "rave characterK

c/ maintain ernande& as appl%in" to ma:e rebellionabsorb all other offenses committed in its course, $hether



or not necessar% to its commission or in furtherancethereof.

'n the first option, eleven **/ Members of the Court voted a"ainstabandonin" 9ernande!. &$o (/ Members felt that the doctrine should be re-e3amined. 10-" n the vie$ of the ma8orit%, the rulin" remains "ood la$, its

substantive and lo"ical bases have $ithstood all subse2uent challen"es andno ne$ ones are presented here persuasive enou"h to $arrant a completereversal. &his vie$ is reinforced b% the fact that not too lon" a"o, theincumbent President, e3ercisin" her po$ers under the *+57 FreedomConstitution, sa$ fit to repeal, amon" others, Presidential 0ecree No. +6( ofthe former re"ime $hich precisel% sou"ht to nullif% orneutrali!e ernande& b% enactin" a ne$ provision Art. *6(-A/ into theRevised Penal Code to the effect that #$/hen b% reason, or on the occasion,of an% of the crimes penali!ed in this Chapter Chapter of &itle ), $hichincludes rebellion/, acts $hich constitute offenses upon $hich "raverpenalties are imposed b% la$ are committed, the penalt% for the most

serious offense in its ma3imum period shall be imposed upon theoffender.#@ 11 n thus actin", the President in effect b% le"islative flatreinstated ernande& as bindin" doctrine $ith the effect of la$. &he Courtcan do no less than accord it the same reco"nition, absent an% sufficientl%po$erful reason a"ainst so doin".

'n the second option, the Court unanimousl% voted to re8ect the theor%that ernande& is, or should be, limited in its application to offensescommitted as a necessar% means for the commission of rebellion and thatthe rulin" should not be interpreted as prohibitin" the comple3in" of rebellion$ith other common crimes committed on the occasion, but not infurtherance, thereof. Dhile four Members of the Court felt that the

proponents@ ar"uments $ere not entirel% devoid of merit, the consensus $asthat the% $ere not sufficient to overcome $hat appears to be the real thrustof ernande& to rule out the comple3in" of rebellion $ith an% other offensecommitted in its course under either of the aforecited clauses of Article 65,as is made clear b% the follo$in" e3cerpt from the ma8orit% opinion in thatcase4

&here is one other reason-and a fundamental one at that-$h% Article 65 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in the

case at bar. f murder $ere not comple3ed $ith rebellion,and the t$o crimes $ere punished separatel% assumin"that this could be done/, the follo$in" penalties $ould beimposable upon the movant, namel%4 */ for the crime ofrebellion, a fine not e3ceedin" P(>,>>> and prision

ma"or in the correspondin" period, dependin" upon the

modif%in" circumstances present, but never e3ceedin" *(%ears of prision ma"or and (/ for the crime ofmurder, reclusion temporal in its ma3imum period todeath, dependin" upon the modif%in" circumstancespresent. in other $ords, in the absence of a""ravatin"circumstances, the e2treme penalt" could not be

imposed upon him. 9o$ever, under Article 65 said penalt"

+ould ha*e to be meted out to him, e*en in the absence

of a single aggra*ating circumstance. &hus, said provision,if construed in conformit% $ith the theor% of theprosecution, $ould be unfa*orable to the movant.

<pon the other hand, said Article 65 $as enacted for thepurpose of fa*oring the culprit, not of sentencin" him to apenalt% more se*ere than that $hich $ould be proper if theseveral acts performed b% him $ere punished separatel%.n the $ords of Rodri"ue! Navarro4

a unificacion de penas en los casos deconcurso de delitos a 2ue hacereferencia este articulo ? del Codi"ode *+)(/, esta basado francamente enel principio pro reo.@ 0octrina Penal

del &ribunal 1upremo de Espana, p.(*75./

De are a$are of the fact that this observation refers to Article ?* later ?/ of the 1panish Penal Code thecounterpart of our Article 65/, as amended in *+>5 andthen in *+)(, readin"4



as disposiciones del articulo anteriorno son aplicables en el caso de 2ue unsolo hecho constitu%a dos o mas delitos,o cuando el uno de ellos sea medionecesario para cometer el otro.

En estos casos solo se impondra lapena correspondiente al delito mas"rave en su "rado ma3imo, hasta ellimite 2ue represents la suma de las 2uepudieran imponerse, penandoseparadamente los delitos.

Cuando la pena asi computada e3cedade este limite, se sancionaran los delitospor separado. Rodri"ue! Navarro,0octrina Penal del &ribunal 1upremo,

ol. , p. (*7)/

and that our Article 65 does not contain the 2ualificationinserted in said amendment, restrictin" the imposition ofthe penalt% for the "raver offense in its ma3imum period tothe case $hen it does not e3ceed the sum total of thepenalties imposable if the acts char"ed $ere dealt $ithseparatel%. &he absence of said limitation in our PenalCode does not, to our mind, affect substantiall% the spiritof said Article 65. ndeed, if one act constitutes t$o ormore offenses, there can be no reason to inflict apunishment "raver than that prescribed for each one of

said offenses put to"ether. n directin" that the penalt% forthe "raver offense be, in such case, imposed in itsma3imum period, Article 65 could have had no otherpurpose than to prescribe a penalt% lo+er than thea""re"ate of the penalties for each offense, if imposedseparatel%. &he reason for this benevolent spirit of article65 is readil% discernible. Dhen t$o or more crimes are theresult of a sin"le act, the offender is deemed less perversethan $hen he commits said crimes thru separate and

distinct acts. nstead of sentencin" him for each crimeindependentl% from the other, he must suffer the ma3imumof the penalt% for the more serious one, on the assumptionthat it is less "rave than the sum total of the separatepenalties for each offense. 1/

&he re8ection of both options shapes and determines the primar% rulin" ofthe Court, $hich is that ernande& remains bindin" doctrine operatin" toprohibit the comple3in" of rebellion $ith an% other offense committed on theoccasion thereof, either as a means necessar% to its commission or as anunintended effect of an activit% that constitutes rebellion.

&his, ho$ever, does not $rite finis to the case. Petitioner@s "uilt or innocenceis not here in2uired into, much less ad8ud"ed. &hat is for the trial court to doat the proper time. &he Court@s rulin" merel% provides a ta:e-off point for thedisposition of other 2uestions relevant to the petitioner@s complaints aboutthe denial of his ri"hts and to the propriet% of the recourse he has ta:en.

&he Court rules further b% a vote of ** to )/ that the information filed a"ainstthe petitioner does in fact char"e an offense. 0isre"ardin" the ob8ectionablephrasin" that $ould comple3 rebellion $ith murder and multiple frustratedmurder, that indictment is to be read as char"in" simple rebellion. &hus,in ernande& , the Court said4

n conclusion, $e hold that, under the allegations of the

amended information a"ainst defendant-appellant Amado. 9ernande!, the murders, arsons and robberiesdescribed therein are mere ingredients of the crime ofrebellion alle"edl% committed b% said defendants, asmeans #necessar%# 6/ for the perpetration of said offenseof rebellionK that the crime charged in the aforementionedamended information is, therefore, simple rebellion, notthe comple3 crime of rebellion $ith multiple murder,arsons and robberiesK that the ma3imum penalt%imposable under such char"e cannot e3ceed t$elve *(/%ears of prision ma"or and a fine of P(9,999K and that, inconformit% $ith the polic% of this court in dealin" $ith



accused persons amenable to a similar punishment, saiddefendant ma% be allo$ed bail. 1

&he plaint of petitioner@s counsel that he is char"ed $ith a crime that doesnot e3ist in the statute boo:s, $hile technicall% correct so far as the Courthas ruled that rebellion ma% not be comple3ed $ith other offenses

committed on the occasion thereof, must therefore be dismissed as a merefli"ht of rhetoric. Read in the conte3t of ernande& , the information doesindeed char"e the petitioner $ith a crime defined and punished b% theRevised Penal Code4 simple rebellion.

Das the petitioner char"ed $ithout a complaint havin" been initiall% filedand;or preliminar% investi"ation conductedU &he record sho$s other$ise,that a complaint a"ainst petitioner for simple rebellion $as filed b% the0irector of the National Bureau of nvesti"ation, and that on the stren"th ofsaid complaint a preliminar% investi"ation $as conducted b% the respondentprosecutors, culminatin" in the filin" of the 2uestioned information.1* &here is

nothin" inherentl% irre"ular or contrar% to la$ in filin" a"ainst a respondentan indictment for an offense different from $hat is char"ed in the initiator%complaint, if $arranted b% the evidence developed durin" the preliminar%investi"ation.

t is also contended that the respondent ud"e issued the $arrant forpetitioner@s arrest $ithout first personall" determinin" the e3istence ofprobable cause b% e3aminin" under oath or affirmation the complainant andhis $itnesses, in violation of Art. , sec. (, of the Constitution. 1 &his Courthas alread% ruled, ho$ever, that it is not the unavoidable dut% of the 8ud"e toma:e such a personal e3amination, it bein" sufficient that he follo$sestablished procedure b% personall" evaluatin" the report and the supportin"

documents submitted b% the prosecutor. 16 Petitioner claims that the $arrantof arrest issued barel% one hour and t$ent% minutes after the case $asraffled off to the respondent ud"e, $hich hardl% "ave the latter sufficienttime to personall% "o over the voluminous records of the preliminar%investi"ation. 17 Merel% because said respondent had $hat some mi"htconsider onl% a relativel% brief period $ithin $hich to compl% $ith that dut%,"ives no reason to assume that he had not, or could not have, so compliedKnor does that sin"le circumstance suffice to overcome the le"al presumptionthat official dut% has been re"ularl% performed.

Petitioner finall% claims that he $as denied the ri"ht to bail. n the li"ht of theCourt@s reaffirmation of ernande& as applicable to petitioner@s case, and ofthe lo"ical and necessar% corollar% that the information a"ainst him shouldbe considered as char"in" onl% the crime of simple rebellion, $hich isbailable before conviction, that must no$ be accepted as a correctproposition. But the 2uestion remains4 iven the facts from $hich this case

arose, $as a petition for habeas corpus in this Court the appropriate vehiclefor assertin" a ri"ht to bail or vindicatin" its denialU

&he criminal case before the respondent ud"e $as the normal venue forinvo:in" the petitioner@s ri"ht to have provisional libert% pendin" trial and 8ud"ment. &he ori"inal 8urisdiction to "rant or den% bail rested $ith saidrespondent. &he correct course $as for petitioner to invo:e that 8urisdictionb% filin" a petition to be admitted to bail, claimin" a ri"ht to bail per se b%reason of the $ea:ness of the evidence a"ainst him. 'nl% after that remed%$as denied b% the trial court should the revie$ 8urisdiction of this Court havebeen invo:ed, and even then, not $ithout first appl%in" to the Court of

Appeals if appropriate relief $as also available there.

Even acceptance of petitioner@s premise that "oin" b% the ernande& rulin",the information char"es a non-e3istent crime or, contraril%, theori!in" on thesame basis that it char"es more than one offense, $ould not e3cuse or 8ustif% his improper choice of remedies. <nder either h%pothesis, the obviousrecourse $ould have been a motion to 2uash brou"ht in the criminal actionbefore the respondent ud"e. 18

&here thus seems to be no 2uestion that All the "rounds upon $hichpetitioner has founded the present petition, $hether these $ent into thesubstance of $hat is char"ed in the information or imputed error or omission

on the part of the prosecutin" panel or of the respondent ud"e in dealin"$ith the char"es a"ainst him, $ere ori"inall% 8usticiable in the criminal casebefore said ud"e and should have been brou"ht up there instead of directl%to this Court.

&here $as and is no reason to assume that the resolution of an% of these2uestions $as be%ond the abilit% or competence of the respondent ud"e-indeed such an assumption $ould be demeanin" and less than fair to ourtrial courtsK none $hatever to hold them to be of such comple3it% or



transcendental importance as to dis2ualif% ever% court, e3cept this Court,from decidin" themK none, in short that $ould 8ustif% b% passin" established 8udicial processes desi"ned to orderl% move liti"ation throu"h the hierarch%of our courts. Parenthenticall%, this is the reason behind the vote of fourMembers of the Court a"ainst the "rant of bail to petitioner4 the vie$ that thetrial court should not thus be precipitatel% ousted of its ori"inal 8urisdiction to

"rant or den% bail, and if it erred in that matter, denied an opportunit% tocorrect its error. t ma:es no difference that the respondent ud"e hereissued a $arrant of arrest fi3in" no bail. mmemorial practice sanctionssimpl% follo$in" the prosecutor@s recommendation re"ardin" bail, thou"h itma% be perceived as the better course for the 8ud"e motu proprio to set abail hearin" $here a capital offense is char"ed. 19 t is, in an% event,incumbent on the accused as to $hom no bail has been recommended orfi3ed to claim the ri"ht to a bail hearin" and thereb% put to proof the stren"thor $ea:ness of the evidence a"ainst him.

t is apropos to point out that the present petition has tri""ered a rush to this

Court of other parties in a similar situation, all apparentl% ta:in" their cuefrom it, distrustful or contemptuous of the efficac% of see:in" recourse in there"ular manner 8ust outlined. &he proliferation of such pleas has onl%contributed to the dela% that the petitioner ma% have hoped to avoid b%comin" directl% to this Court.

Not onl% because popular interest seems focused on the outcome of thepresent petition, but also because to $ash the Court@s hand off it on 8urisdictional "rounds $ould onl% compound the dela% that it has alread%"one throu"h, the Court no$ decides the same on the merits. But in sodoin", the Court cannot e3press too stron"l% the vie$ that said petitioninterdicted the ordered and orderl% pro"ression of proceedin"s that should

have started $ith the trial court and reached this Court onl% if the reliefappealed for $as denied b% the former and, in a proper case, b% the Court of Appeals on revie$.

et it be made ver% clear that hereafter the Court $ill no lon"er countenance,but $ill "ive short shrift to, pleas li:e the present, that clearl% short-circuit the 8udicial process and burden it $ith the resolution of issues properl% $ithin theori"inal competence of the lo$er courts. Dhat has thus far been stated ise2uall% applicable to and decisive of the petition of the Panlilio spouses

.R. No. +(*76/ $hich is virtuall% dentical to that of petitioner Enrile infactualmilieu and is therefore determinable on the same principles alread%set forth. 1aid spouses have uncontestedl% pleaded /0 that $arrants of arrestissued a"ainst them as co-accused of petitioner Enrile in Criminal Case No.+>-*>+6*, that $hen the% appeared before NB 0irector Alfredo im in theafternoon of March *, *++>, the% $ere ta:en into custod% and detained

$ithout bail on the stren"th of said $arrants in violation-the% claim-of theirconstitutional ri"hts.

t ma% be that in the li"ht of contemporar% events, the act of rebellion haslost that 2uitessentian% 2ui3otic 2ualit% that 8ustifies the relative lenienc% $ith$hich it is re"arded and punished b% la$, that present-da% rebels are lessimpelled b% love of countr% than b% lust for po$er and have become nobetter than mere terrorists to $hom nothin", not even the sanctit% of humanlife, is allo$ed to stand in the $a% of their ambitions. Nothin" so underscoresthis aberration as the rash of seemin"l% senseless :illin"s, bombin"s,:idnappin"s and assorted ma%hem so much in the ne$s these da%s, as

often perpetrated a"ainst innocent civilians as a"ainst the militar%, but b%and lar"e attributable to, or even claimed b% so-called rebels to be part of,an on"oin" rebellion.

t is enou"h to "ive an%one pause-and the Court is no e3ception-that noteven the cro$ded streets of our capital Cit% seem safe from such unsettlin"violence that is disruptive of the public peace and st%mies ever% effort atnational economic recover%. &here is an apparent need to restructure the la$on rebellion, either to raise the penalt% therefor or to clearl% define anddelimit the other offenses to be considered as absorbed thereb%, so that itcannot be convenientl% utili!ed as the umbrella for ever% sort of ille"alactivit% underta:en in its name. &he Court has no po$er to effect such

chan"e, for it can onl% interpret the la$ as it stands at an% "iven t ime, and$hat is needed lies be%ond interpretation. 9opefull%, Con"ress $ill perceivethe need for promptl% sei!in" the initiative in this matter, $hich is properl%$ithin its province.

D9EREF'RE, the Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciatedin (eople *s. ernande& the 2uestioned information filed a"ainst petitionersuan Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must beread as char"in" simple rebellion onl%, hence said petitioners are entitled to



bail, before final conviction, as a matter of ri"ht. &he Court@s earlier "rant ofbail to petitioners bein" merel% provisional in character, the proceedin"s inboth cases are ordered REMAN0E0 to the respondent ud"e to fi3 theamount of bail to be posted b% the petitioners. 'nce bail is fi3ed b% saidrespondent for an% of the petitioners, the correspondin" bail bond flied $iththis Court shall become functus oficio. No pronouncement as to costs.

1' 'R0ERE0.

Cru& Ganca"co and Regalado JJ. concur.

Medialdea J. concurs in G.R. 1o. 5:;84 but too0 no part in G.R. 1o.

5:;8<.

Cortes and Gri/o-!%uino JJ. are on lea*e.

Se&#r#te O&'$'o$(

MELENCIO-HERRER", J., concurrin"4

8oin m% collea"ues in holdin" that the ernande& doctrine, $hich has been$ith us for the past three decades, remains "ood la$ and, thus, shouldremain undisturbed, despite periodic challen"es to it that, ironicall%, haveonl% served to stren"then its pronouncements.

ta:e e3ception to the vie$, ho$ever, that habeas corpus $as not the proper remed%.

9ad the nformation filed belo$ char"ed merel% the simple crime ofRebellion, that proposition could have been plausible. But that nformationchar"ed Rebellion comple3ed $ith Murder and Multiple Frustrated Murder, a

crime $hich does not e3ist in our statute boo:s. &he char"e $as obviousl%intended to ma:e the penalt% for the most serious offense in its ma3imumperiod imposable upon the offender pursuant to Article 65 of the RevisedPenal Code. &hus, no bail $as recommended in the nformation nor $as an%prescribed in the Darrant of Arrest issued b% the &rial Court.

<nder the attendant circumstances, therefore, to have filed a Motion toGuash before the lo$er Court $ould not have brou"ht about the speed%relief from unla$ful restraint that petitioner $as see:in". 0urin" thependenc% of said Motion before the lo$er Court, petitioner could havecontinued to lan"uish in detention. Besides, the Drit of abeas Corpus ma%still issue even if another remed%, $hich is less effective, ma% be availed ofChave! vs. Court of Appeals, (6 1CRA 77)/.

t is true that habeas corpus $ould ordinaril% not he $hen a person is undercustod% b% virtue of a process issued b% a Court.

&he Court, ho$ever, must have 8urisdiction to issue the process. n this case,the Court belo$ must be deemed to have been ousted of 8urisdiction $hen itille"all% curtailed petitioner@s libert%. 9abeas corpus is thus available.

&he $rit of habeas corpus is available to relieve personsfrom unla$ful restraint. But $here the detention orconfinement is the result of a process issued b% the courtor 8ud"e or b% virtue of a 8ud"ment or sentence, the $ritordinaril% cannot be availed of. t ma" still be in*o0ed

though if the process judgment or sentence proceeded

from a court or tribunal the jurisdiction of +hich ma" be

assailed. $*en if it had authorit" to act at the outset it is

no+ the pre*ailing doctrine that a depri*ation of

constitutional right if sho+n to e2ist +ould oust it of

jurisdiction. n such a case habeas corpus could be relied

upon to regain one=s libert" Celeste vs. People, )* 1CRA)+*/ Emphasis emphasisQ.

&he Petition for habeas corpus $as precisel% premised on the violation ofpetitioner@s constitutional ri"ht to bail inasmuch as rebellion, under thepresent state of the la$, is a bailable offense and the crime for $hich



petitioner stands accused of and for $hich he $as denied bail is non-e3istentin la$.

Dhile liti"ants should, as a rule, ascend the steps of the 8udicial ladder,nothin" should stop this Court f rom ta:in" co"ni!ance of petitions brou"htbefore it raisin" ur"ent constitutional issues, an% procedural fla$

not$ithstandin".

&he rules on habeas corpus are to be liberall% construedana$a% v. Guilen, 6( Phil. 5>/, the $rit of habeas

corpus bein" the fundamental instrument for safe"uardin"individual freedom a"ainst arbitrar% and la$less stateaction. &he scope and fle3ibilit% of the $rit-its capacit% toreach all manner of ille"al detention-its abilit" to cut

through barriers of form and procedural ma&es-haveal$a%s been emphasi!ed and 8ealousl% "uarded b% courtsand la$ma:ers umabon v. 0irector of Bureau of

Prisons, )? 1CRA 6(>/ emphasis suppliedQ.

&he proliferation of cases in this Court, $hich follo$ed in the $a:e of thisPetition, $as brou"ht about b% the insistence of the prosecution to char"ethe crime of Rebellion comple3ed $ith other common offensesnot$ithstandin" the fact that this Court had not %et ruled on the validit% ofthat char"e and had "ranted provisional libert% to petitioner.

f, indeed, it is desired to ma:e the crime of Rebellion a capital offense no$punishable b% reclusion perpetua/, the remed% lies in le"islation. But Article*6(-A 1 of the Revised Penal Code, alon" $ith P.0. No. +6(, $ere repealed,for bein" #repressive,# b% E' No. *5? on une *+5?. E' *5? furthere3plicitl% provided that Article *)6 and others enumerated/ of the RevisedPenal Code $as #restored to its full force and effect as it e3isted before saidamendator% decrees.# 9avin" been so repealed, this Court is bereft of po$er to le"islate into e3istence, under the "uise of re-e3aminin" a settled doctrine,a #creature un:no$n in la$#- the comple3 crime of Rebellion $ith Murder.&he remand of the case to the lo$er Court for further proceedin"s is in order.&he Drit of abeas Corpushas served its purpose.

GUTIERRE!, R., J., concurrin"4

8oin the Court@s decision to "rant the petition. n reiteratin" the rule thatunder e3istin" la$ rebellion ma% not be comple3ed $ith murder, the Courtemphasi!es that it cannot le"islate a ne$-crime into e3istence nor prescribea penalt% for its commission. &hat function is e3clusivel% for Con"ress.

$rite this separate opinion to ma:e clear ho$ vie$ certain issues arisin"from these cases, especiall% on ho$ the defective informations filed b% theprosecutors should have been treated.

a"ree $ith the ponente that a petition for habeas corpus is ordinaril% not theproper procedure to assert the ri"ht to bail. <nder the special circumstancesof this case, ho$ever, the petitioners had no other recourse. &he% had tocome to us.

First, the trial court $as certainl% a$are of the decision in People v.

9ernande!, ++ Phil. * *+7/ that there is no such crime in our statuteboo:s as rebellion comple3ed $ith murder, that murder committed inconnection $ith a rebellion is absorbed b% the crime of rebellion, and that aresort to arms resultin" in the destruction of life or propert% constitutesneither t$o or more offenses nor a comple3 crime but one crime-rebellionpure and simple.

1econd, ernande& has been the la$ for )6 %ears. t has been reiterated ine2uall% sensational cases. All la$%ers and even la$ students are a$are ofthe doctrine. Attempts to have the doctrine re-e3amined have beenconsistentl% re8ected b% this Court.

&hird, President Marcos throu"h the use of his then le"islative po$ers,issued Pres. 0ecree +6(, thereb% installin" the ne$ crime of rebellioncomple3ed $ith offenses li:e murder $here "raver penalties are imposed b%la$. 9o$ever, President A2uino usin" her then le"islative po$ers e3pressl%repealed P0 +6( b% issuin" E3ec. 'rder *5?. 1he thereb% erased the crimeof rebellion comple3ed $ith murder and made it clear thatthe ernande& doctrine remains the controllin" rule. &he prosecution has note3plained $h% it insists on resurrectin" an offense e3pressl% $iped out b%the President. &he prosecution, in effect, 2uestions the action of the



President in repealin" a repressive decree, a decree $hich, accordin" to therepeal order, is violative of human ri"hts.

Fourth, an% re-e3amination of the 9ernande! doctrine brin"s the e3 postfacto principle into the picture. 0ecisions of this Court form part of our le"als%stem. Even if $e declare that rebellion ma% be comple3ed $ith murder,

our declaration can not be made retroactive $here the effect is to imprison aperson for a crime $hich did not e3ist until the 1upreme Court reverseditself.

And fifth, the attempts to distin"uish this case from the ernande& case b%stressin" that the :illin"s char"ed in the information $ere committed #on theoccasion of, but not a necessar% means for, the commission of rebellion#result in outlandish conse2uences and i"nore the basic nature of rebellion.&hus, under the prosecution theor% a bomb dropped on P&-6 $hich :ills"overnment troopers results in simple rebellion because the act is anecessar% means to ma:e the rebellion succeed. 9o$ever, if the same

bomb also :ills some civilians in the nei"hborhood, the droppin" of the bombbecomes rebellion comple3ed $ith murder because the :illin" of civilians isnot necessar% for the success of a rebellion and, therefore, the :illin"s areonl% #on the occasion of but not a @necessar% means for@ the commission ofrebellion.

&his ar"ument is puerile.

&he crime of rebellion consists of man% acts. &he droppin" of one bombcannot be isolated as a separate crime of rebellion. Neither should thedroppin" of one hundred bombs or the f irin" of thousands of machine "unbullets be bro:en up into a hundred or thousands of separate offenses, ifeach bomb or each bullet happens to result in the destruction of life andpropert%. &he same act cannot be punishable b% separate penaltiesdependin" on $hat stri:es the fanc% of prosecutors-punishment for the :illin"of soldiers or retribution for the deaths of civilians. &he prosecution alsoloses si"ht of the re"rettable fact that in total $ar and in rebellion the :illin"of civilians, the la%in" $aste of civilian economies, the massacre of innocentpeople, the blo$in" up of passen"er airplanes, and other acts of terrorismare all used b% those en"a"ed in rebellion. De cannot and should not tr% toascertain the intent of rebels for each sin"le act unless the act is plainl% not

connected to the rebellion. De cannot use Article 65 of the Revised PenalCode in lieu of still-to- be-enacted le"islation. &he :illin" of civilians durin" arebel attac: on militar% facilities furthers the rebellion and is part of therebellion.

&he trial court $as certainl% a$are of all the above considerations. cannot

understand $h% the trial ud"e issued the $arrant of arrest $hichcate"oricall% states therein that the accused +as not entitled to bail . &hepetitioner $as compelled to come to us so he $ould not be arrested +ithout

bail for a none3istent crime. &he trial court for"ot to appl% an establisheddoctrine of the 1upreme Court. Dorse, it issued a $arrant $hich reversed )6%ears of established procedure based on a $ell-:no$n 1upreme Courtrulin".

All courts should remember that the% form part of an independent 8udicials%stemK the% do not belon" to the prosecution service. A court should neverpla% into the hands of the prosecution and blindl% compl% $ith its erroneous

manifestations. Faced $ith an information char"in" a manifestl% non-e3istentcrime, the dut" of a trial court is to thro+ it out. 'r, at the ver% least and$here possible, ma:e it conform to the la$.

A lo$er court cannot re-e3amine and reverse a decision of the 1upremeCourt especiall% a decision consistentl% follo$ed for )6 %ears. Dhere aud"e disa"rees $ith a 1upreme Court rulin", he is free to e3press hisreservations in the bod% of his decision, order, or resolution. 9o$ever, an% 8ud"ment he renders, an% order he prescribes, and an% processes heissues must follo+ the Supreme Court precedent. A trial court has no 8urisdiction to reverse or i"nore precedents of the 1upreme Court. n thisparticular case, it should have been the 1olicitor eneral comin" to this

Court to 2uestion the lo$er court@s re8ection of the application for a $arrantof arrest $ithout bail. t should have been the 1olicitor-eneral provo:in" theissue of re-e3amination instead of the petitioners as:in" to be freed fromtheir arrest for a non-e3istent crime.

&he principle bears repeatin"4

Respondent Court of Appeals reall% $as devoid of an%choice at all. t could not have ruled in an% other $a% on



the le"al 2uestion raised. &his &ribunal havin" spo:en, itsdut% $as to obe%. t is as simple as that. &here isrelevance to this e3cerpt from Barrera v. Barrera. -)*5+, ul% )*, *+?>, )6 1CRA +5/ @&he delicate tas: ofascertainin" the si"nificance that attaches to aconstitutional or statutor% provision, an e3ecutive order, a

procedural norm or a municipal ordinance is committed tothe 8udiciar%. t thus dischar"es a role no less crucial thanthat appertainin" to the other t$o departments in themaintenance of the rule of la$. &o assure stabilit% in le"alrelations and avoid confusion, it has to spea: $ith onevoice. t does so $ith finalit%, lo"icall% and ri"htl%, throu"hthe hi"hest 8udicial or"an, this Court. Dhat it sa%s thenshould be definitive and authoritative, bindin" on thoseoccup%in" the lo$er ran:s in the 8udicial hierarch%. &he%have to defer and to submit.@ bid , *>?. &he opinion ofustice aurel in People v. era, 7 Phil. 7 *+)?Q $ascited/. &he ensuin" para"raph of the opinion in Barrerafurther emphasi!es the point4 1uch a thou"ht $asreiterated in an opinion of ustice .B.. Re%es and further emphasi!ed in these $ords4 @ud"e audencio Cloribelneed not be reminded that the 1upreme Court, b% traditionand in our s%stem of 8udicial administration, has the last$ord on $hat the la$ isK it is the final arbiter of an% 8ustifiable controvers%. &here is onl% one 1upreme Courtfrom $hose decisions all other courts should ta:e theirbearin"s. bid . ustice .B.. Re%es spo:e thus in Albert v.Court of First nstance of Manila Br. /, -(7)76, Ma% (+,*+75, () 1CRA +65, +7*. &u"ade v. Court of Appeals, 5

1CRA ((7 *+?5Q. 1ee also Albert v. Court of Firstnstance, () 1CRA +65 *+75Q and ir-en 1hippin" andMarine 1ervices, nc. v. NRC, *( 1CRA ?? *+5)Q/

find the situation in Spouses (anlilio *. (rosecutors #ernando de Leon et

al. even more ine3plicable. n the case of the Panlilios, an% probable causeto commit the non- e3istent crime of rebellion comple3ed $ith murder e3istsonl% in the minds of the prosecutors, not in the records of the case.

have "one over the records and pleadin"s furnished to the members of the1upreme Court. listened intentl% to the oral ar"uments durin" the hearin"and it $as 2uite apparent that the constitutional re2uirement of probablecause $as not satisfied. n fact, in ans$er to m% 2uer% for an% other proofsto support the issuance of a $arrant of arrest, the ans$er $as that the

e*idence +ould be submitted in due time to the trial court.

&he spouses Panlilio and one parent have been in the restaurant businessfor decades. <nder the records of these petitions, an% restaurant o$ner orhotel mana"er $ho serves food to rebels is a co-conspirator in the rebellion.&he absurdit% of this proposition is apparent if $e bear in mind that rebelsride in buses and 8eepne%s, eat meals in rural houses $hen mealtime findsthem in the vicinit%, 8oin $eddin"s, fiestas, and other parties, pla% bas:etball$ith barrio %ouths, attend masses and church services and other$ise mi3$ith people in various "atherin"s. Even if the hosts reco"ni!e them to berebels and fail to shoo them a$a%, it does not necessaril% follo$ that theformer are co-conspirators in a rebellion.

&he onl% basis for probable cause sho$n b% the records of the Panlilio caseis the alle"ed fact that the petitioners served food to rebels at the Enrilehousehold and a hotel supervisor as:ed t$o or three of their $aiters, $ithoutreason, to "o on a vacation. Clearl%, a much, much stron"er sho$in" ofprobable cause must be sho$n.

n Salonga *. Cru& (a/o *)6 1CRA 6)5 *+5/, then 1enator 1alon"a $aschar"ed as a conspirator in the heinous bombin" of innocent civiliansbecause the man $ho planted the bomb had, sometime earlier, appeared ina "roup photo"raph ta:en durin" a birthda% part% in the <nited 1tates $iththe 1enator and other "uests. t $as a case of conspirac% proved throu"h a

"roup picture. 9ere, it is a case of conspirac% sou"ht to proved throu"h thecaterin" of food.

&he Court in Salonga stressed4

&he purpose of a preliminar% investi"ation is to secure theinnocent a"ainst hast%, malicious and oppressiveprosecution, and to protect him from an open and publicaccusation of crime, from the trouble, e3pense and an3iet%



of a public trial, and also to protect the state from uselessand e3pensive trials. &rocio v. Manta, **5 1CRA (6*Kcitin" 9ashimn v. Boncan, ?* Phil. (*7/. &he ri"ht to apreliminar% investi"ation is a statutor% "rant, and to$ithhold it $ould be to trans"ress constitutional dueprocess. 1ee People v. 'andasa, ( 1CRA (??/

9o$ever, in order to satisf% the due process clause it isnot enou"h that the preliminar% investi"ation is conductedin the sense of ma:in" sure that a trans"ressor shall notescape $ith impunit%. A preliminar% investi"ation servesnot onl% the purposes of the 1tate. More important, it is apart of the "uarantees of freedom and fair pla% $hich arebirthri"hts of all $ho live in our countr%. t is, therefore,imperative upon the fiscal or the 8ud"e as the case ma%be, to relieve the accused from the pain of "oin" throu"h atrial once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficientto sustain a prima facie case or that no probable causee3ists to form a sufficient belief as to the "uilt of theaccused. Althou"h there is no "eneral formula or f i3ed rulefor the determination of probable cause since the samemust be decided in the li"ht of the conditions obtainin" in"iven situations and its e3istence depends to a lar"ede"ree upon the findin" or opinion of the 8ud"e conductin"the e3amination, such a findin" should not disre"ard thefacts before the 8ud"e nor run counter to the clear dictatesof reason 1ee a Chemise acoste, 1.A. v. Fernande!,*(+ 1CRA )+*/. &he 8ud"e or fiscal, therefore, should not"o on $ith the prosecution in the hope that some credibleevidence mi"ht later turn up durin" trial for this $ould be a

fla"rant violation of a basic ri"ht $hich the courts arecreated to uphold. t bears repeatin" that the 8udiciar% livesup to its mission b% vitali!in" and not deni"ratin"constitutional ri"hts. 1o it has been before. t shouldcontinue to be so. id ., pp. 67*- 67(/

Because of the fore"oin", ta:e e3ception to that part of the ponencia $hich$ill read the informations as char"in" simple rebellion. &his case did notarise from innocent error. f an information char"es murder but its contentssho$ onl% the in"redients of homicide, the ud"e ma% ri"htl% read it as

char"in" homicide. n these cases, ho$ever, there is a deliberate attempt tochar"e the petitioners for an offense $hich this Court has ruled as non-e3istent. &he prosecution $anted 9ernande! to be reversed. 1ince theprosecution has filed informations for a crime $hich, under our rulin"s, doesnot e3ist, those informations should be treated as null and void. Ne$informations char"in" the correct offense should be filed. And in .R. No.

+(*76, an e3tra effort should be made to see $hether or not the Principlein Salonga *. Cru& (atio et al. >supra? has been violated.

&he Court is not, in an% $a%, preventin" the overnment from usin" moreeffective $eapons to suppress rebellion. f the overnment feels that thecurrent situation calls for the imposition of more severe penalties li:e deathor the creation of ne$ crimes li:e rebellion comple3ed $ith murder, theremed% is $ith Con"ress, not the courts.

, therefore, vote to RAN& the petitions and to 'R0ER the respondentcourt to 01M11 the void informations for a non-e3istent crime.

FELICI"NO, J., concurrin"4

concur in the result reached b% the ma8orit% of the Court.

believe that there are certain aspects of the ernande& doctrine that, as anabstract 2uestion of la$, could stand ree3amination or clarification. have inmind in particular matters such as the correct or appropriate relationshipbet$een Article *)6 and Article *) of the Revised Penal Code. &his is a

matter $hich relates to the le"al concept of rebellion in our le"al s%stem. fone e3amines the actual terms of Article *)6 entitled4 #Rebellion ornsurrection-9o$ Committed#/, it $ould appear that this Article specifies boththe o*ert acts and the criminal purpose $hich, $hen put to"ether, $ouldconstitute the offense of rebellion. &hus, Article *)6 states that #the crime ofrebellion is committed b% risin" publicl% and ta:in" arms a"ainst theovernment #i.e., the overt acts comprisin" rebellion/, #for the purpose ofi.e., the specific criminal intent or political ob8ective/ removin" from thealle"iance to said "overnment or its la$s the territor% of the Republic of thePhilippines or an% part thereof, or an% bod% of land, naval or other armed



forces, or deprivin" the Chief E3ecutive or the e"islature, $holl% or partiall%,of their po$ers or prero"atives.# At the same time, Article *) entitled4#Penalt% for Rebellion or nsurrection.#/ sets out a listin" of acts or particularmeasures $hich appear to fall under the rubric of rebellion or insurrection4#en"a"in" in $ar a"ainst the forces of the overnment, destro%in" propert%or committin" serious violence, e3actin" contributions or divertin" public

funds from the la$ful purpose for $hich the% have been appropriated.# Arethese modalities of rebellion generall"@ 'r are the% particular modes b%$hich those #$ho promote A B maintain A B or head A B a rebellion or

insurrection commit rebellion, or particular modes of participation in arebellion b" public officers or emplo"ees@ Clearl%, the scope of the le"alconcept of rebellion relates to the distinction bet$een, on the one hand, theindispensable acts or in"redients of the crime of rebellion under the RevisedPenal Code and, on the other hand, differin" optional modes of see:in" tocarr% out the political or social ob8ective of the rebellion or insurrection.

&he difficult% that is at once raised b% an% effort to e3amine once more eventhe above threshold 2uestions is that the results of such re-e3amination ma%$ell be that acts $hich under the ernande& doctrine are absorbed intorebellion, ma% be characteri!ed as separate or discrete offenses $hich, as amatter of la$, can either be prosecuted separatel% from rebellion orprosecuted under the provisions of Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code,$hich both Clause * and Clause ( thereof/ clearl% envisa"e the e3istence of at least t$o (/ distinct offenses. &o reach such a conclusion in the case atbar, $ould, as far as can see, result in collidin" $ith the fundamental non-retroactivit% principle Article 6, Civil CodeK Article ((, Revised Penal CodeKboth in relation to Article 5, Civil Code/.

&he non-retroactivit% rule applies to statutes principall%. But, statutes do not

e3ist in the abstract but rather bear upon the lives of people $ith the specificform "iven them b% 8udicial decisions interpretin" their norms. udicialdecisions construin" statutor% norms "ive specific shape and content to suchnorms. n time, the statutor% norms become encrusted $ith the "lossesplaced upon them b% the courts and the "losses become inte"ral $ith thenorms Cf Calte2 *. (alomar , *5 1CRA (6? *+77Q/. &hus, $hile in le"altheor%, 8udicial interpretation of a statute becomes part of the la$ as of thedate that the la$ $as ori"inall% enacted, believe this theor% is not to beapplied ri"orousl% $here a ne$ 8udicial doctrine is announced, in particularone overrulin" a previous e3istin" doctrine of lon" standin" here, )7 %ears/

and most speciall% not $here the statute construed is criminal in nature andthe ne$ doctrine is more onerous for the accused than the pre-e3istin" onePeople v. abinal, 1CRA 7>? *+?6QK People v. icera, 7 1CRA (?>*+?QK umabon v. 0irector of Prisons, )? 1CRA 6(> *+?*Q/. Moreover, thenon-retroactivit% rule $hether in respect of le"islative acts or 8udicialdecisions has constitutional implications. &he prevailin" rule in the <nited

1tates is that a 8udicial decision that retroactivel% renders an act criminal orenhances the severit% of the penalt% prescribed for an offense, is vulnerableto constitutional challen"e based upon the rule a"ainst e3 post facto la$sand the due process clause Bouie v. Cit% of Columbia, )?5 <1 )6?,*( .Ed. (d 5+6 *+76QK Mar:s v. <.1., 6) <1 *55, * . Ed. (d (7> *+??QK0evine v. Ne$ Me3ico 0epartment of Corrections, 577 F. (d ))+ *+5+Q/.

t is ur"ed b% the 1olicitor eneral that the non-retroactivit% principle doesnot present an% real problem for the reason that the ernande& doctrine $asbased upon Article 65, second clause, of the Revised Penal Code and notupon the first clause thereof, $hile it is precisel% the first clause of Article 65that the overnment here invo:es. t is, ho$ever, open to serious doubt$hether ernande& can reasonabl% be so simpl% and sharpl% characteri!ed. And assumin" the ernande& could be so characteri!ed, subse2uent casesrefer to the ernande& doctrine in terms $hich do not distin"uish clearl%bet$een the first clause and the second clause of Article 65 e."., People v.eronimo, *>> Phil. +> *+7QK People v. Rodri"ue!, *>? Phil. 7+ *+7>Q/.&hus, it appears to me that the critical 2uestion $ould be $hether a man ofordinar% intelli"ence $ould have necessaril% read or understoodthe ernande& doctrine as referrin" e3clusivel% to Article 65, second clause.Put in sli"htl% different terms, the important 2uestion $ould be $hether thene$ doctrine here proposed b% the overnment could fairl% have beenderived b% a man of avera"e intelli"ence or counsel of avera"e competence

in the la$/ from an e3amination of Articles *)6 and *) of the Revised PenalCode as interpreted b% the Court in the ernande& and subse2uent cases.&o formulate the 2uestion ill these terms $ould almost be to compel ane"ative ans$er, especiall% in vie$ of the conclusions reached b% the Courtand its several Members toda%.

Finall%, there appears to be no 2uestion that the ne$ doctrine that theovernment $ould have us discover for the first time since the promul"ationof the Revised Penal Code in *+)(, $ould be more onerous for therespondent accused than the simple application of the ernande& doctrine



that murders $hich have been committed on the occasion of and infurtherance of the crime of rebellion must be deemed absorbed in theoffense of simple rebellion.

a"ree therefore that the information in this case must be vie$ed aschar"in" onl% the crime of simple rebellion.

FERN"N, C.J., concurrin" and dissentin"4

am constrained to $rite this separate opinion on $hat seems to be a ri"idadherence to the *+7 rulin" of the Court. &he numerous challen"es to thedoctrine enunciated in the case of (eople *s. ernande& ++ Phil. **+7/ should at once demonstrate the need to redefine the applicabilit% ofsaid doctrine so as to ma:e it conformable $ith accepted and $ell-settledprinciples of criminal la$ and 8urisprudence.

&o m% mind, the 9ernande! doctrine should not be interpreted as an all-embracin" authorit% for the rule that all common crimes committed on theoccasion, or in furtherance of, or in connection $ith, rebellion are absorbedb% the latter. &o that e3tent, cannot "o alon" $ith the vie$ of the ma8orit% inthe instant case that @9ernande! remains bindin" doctrine operatin" toprohibit the comple3in" of rebellion $ith an% other offense committed on theoccasion thereof, either as a means necessar% to its commission or as anunintended effect of an activit% that constitutes rebellion# p. +, 0ecision/.

&he 9ernande! doctrine has served the purpose for $hich i t $as appealed

b% the Court in *+7 durin" the communist-inspired rebellion of the 9u:s.&he chan"es in our societ% in the span of )6 %ears since then have far-reachin" effects on the all-embracin" applicabilit% of the doctrine considerin"the emer"ence of alternative modes of sei!in" the po$ers of the dul%constituted overnment not contemplated in Articles *)6 and *) of theRevised Penal Code and their conse2uent effects on the lives of our people.&he doctrine $as "ood la$ then, but believe that there is a certain aspectof the 9ernande! doctrine that needs clarification.

Dith all due respect to the vie$s of m% brethren in the Court, believe thatthe Court, in the instant case, should have further considered that distinctionbet$een acts or offenses $hich are indispensable in the commission ofrebellion, on the one hand, and those acts or offenses that are merel"

necessar" but not indispensable in the commission of rebellion, on the other.&he ma8orit% of the Court is correct in adoptin", albeit impliedl%, the vie$ in

9ernande! case that $hen an offense perpetrated as a necessar% means ofcommittin" another, $hich is an element of the latter, the resultin"interloc:in" crimes should be considered as onl% one simple offense andmust be deemed outside the operation of the comple3 crime provisionArticle 65/ of the Revised Penal Code. As in the case of 9ernande!, theCourt, ho$ever, failed in the instant case to distin"uish $hat is indispensablefrom $hat is merel% necessar% in the commission of an offense, resultin"thus in the rule that common crimes li:e murder, arson, robber%, etc.committed in the course or on the occasion of rebellion are absorbed orincluded in the latter as elements thereof.

&he relevance of the distinction is si"nificant, more particularl%, if applied tocontemporaneous events happenin" in our countr% toda%. &heoreticall%, acrime $hich is indispensable in the commission of another must necessaril%be an element of the latterK but a crime that is merel% necessar% but notindispensable in the commission of another is not an element of the latter,and if and $hen actuall% committed, brin"s the interloc:in" crime $ithin theoperation of the comple3 crime provision Art. 65/ of the Revised PenalCode. Dith that distinction, common crimes committed a"ainst overnmentforces and propert% in the course of rebellion are properl% consideredindispensable overt acts of rebellion and are lo"icall% absorbed in it as virtualin"redients or elements thereof, but common crimes committed a"ainst thecivilian population in the course or on the occasion of rebellion and in

furtherance thereof, ma% be necessar% but not indispensable in committin"the latter, and ma%, therefore, not be considered as elements of the saidcrime of rebellion. &o illustrate, the deaths occurrin" durin" armedconfrontation or clashes bet$een "overnment forces and the rebels areabsorbed in the rebellion, and $ould be those resultin" from the bombin" ofmilitar% camps and installations, as these acts are indispensable in carr%in"out the rebellion. But deliberatel% shootin" do$n an unarmed innocentcivilian to instill fear or create chaos amon" the people, althou"h done in thefurtherance of the rebellion, should not be absorbed in the crime of rebellion



as the felonious act is merel% necessar%, but not indispensable. n the lattercase, Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code should appl%.

&he occurrence of a coup d@ etat in our countr% as a mode of sei!in" thepo$ers of the dul%-constituted "overnment b% sta"in" surprise attac:s oroccup%in" centers of po$ers, of $hich this Court should ta:e 8udicial notice,

has introduced a ne$ dimension to the interpretation of the provisions onrebellion and insurrection in the Revised Penal Code. enerall%, as a modeof sei!in" the po$ers of the dul% constituted "overnment, it falls $ithin thecontemplation of rebellion under the Revised Penal Code, but, strictl%construed, a coup d@etat per se is a class b% itself. &he manner of itse3ecution and the e3tent and ma"nitude of its effects on the lives of thepeople distin"uish a coup d@etat from the traditional definition and modes ofcommission attached b% the Revised Penal Code to the crime of rebellion asapplied b% the Court to the communist-inspired rebellion of the *+>@s. Acoup d@etat ma% be e3ecuted successfull% $ithout its perpetrators resortin"to the commission of other serious crimes such as murder, arson,:idnappin", robber%, etc. because of the element of surprise and the precisetimin" of its e3ecution. n e3treme cases $here murder, arson, robber%, andother common crimes are committed on the occasion of a coup d@ etat, thedistinction referred to above on $hat is necessar% and $hat is indispensablein the commission of the coup d@etat should be painsta:in"l% considered asthe Court should have done in the case of herein petitioners.

concur in the result insofar as the other issues are resolved b% the Courtbut ta:e e3ception to the vote of the ma8orit% on the broad application of the9ernande! doctrine.

I)IN, J., concurrin" and dissentin"4

concur $ith the ma8orit% opinion e3cept as re"ards the dispositive portionthereof $hich orders the remand of the case to the respondent 8ud"e forfurther proceedin"s to fi3 the amount of bail to be posted b% the petitioner.

submit that the proceedin"s need not be remanded to the respondent 8ud"efor the purpose of fi3in" bail since $e have construed the indictment hereinas char"in" simple rebellion, an offense $hich is bailable.Conse2uentl%,habeas corpus is the proper remed% available to petitioner as

an accused $ho had been char"ed $ith simple rebellion, a bailable offensebut $ho had been denied his ri"ht to bail b% the respondent 8ud"e in violationof petitioner@s constitutional ri"ht to bail. n vie$ thereof, the responsibilit% offi3in" the amount of bail and approval thereof $hen filed, devolves upon us,if complete relief is to be accorded to petitioner in the instant proceedin"s.

t is indubitable that before conviction, admission to bail is a matter of ri"ht tothe defendant, accused before the Re"ional &rial Court of an offense lessthan capital 1ection *) Article , Constitution and 1ection ), Rule **6/.Petitioner is, before <s, on a petition for habeas corpus pra%in", amon"others, for his provisional release on bail. 1ince the offense char"edconstrued as simple rebellion/ admits of bail, it is incumbent upon us m thee3ercise of our 8urisdiction over the petition for habeas corpus 1ection */, Article , ConstitutionK 1ection (, Rule *>(/, to "rant petitioner his ri"ht tobail and havin" admitted him to bail, to fi3 the amount thereof in such sumsas the court deems reasonable. &hereafter, the rules re2uire that #theproceedin"s to"ether $ith the bond# shall forth$ith be certified to therespondent trial court 1ection *6, Rule *>(/.

Accordin"l%, the cash bond in the amount of P *>>,>>>.>> posted b%petitioner for his provisional release pursuant to our resolution dated March7, *++> should no$ be deemed and admitted as his bail bond for hisprovisional release in the case simple rebellion/ pendin" before therespondent 8ud"e, $ithout necessit% of a remand for further proceedin"s,conditioned for his petitioner@s/ appearance before the trial court to abide itsorder or 8ud"ment in the said case.

S"RMIENTO, J., concurrin" and dissentin"4

a"ree that People v. 9ernande! 1 should abide. More than three decadesafter $hich it $as penned, it has firml% settled in the tomes of our 8urisprudence as correct doctrine.

As 9ernande! put it, rebellion means #en"a"in" m $ar a"ainst the forces ofthe "overnment,# / $hich implies #resort to arms, re2uisition of propert% andservices, collection of ta3es and contributions, restraint of libert%, dama"e to



propert%, ph%sical in8uries and loss of life, and the hun"er, illness andunhappiness that $ar leaves in its $a:e. ...# $hether committed infurtherance, of as a necessar% means for the commission, or in the course,of rebellion. &o sa% that rebellion ma% be comple3ed $ith an% other offense,in this case murder, is to pla% into a contradiction in terms because e3actl%,rebellion includes murder, amon" other possible crimes.

also a"ree that the information ma% stand as an accusation for simplerebellion. 1ince the acts complained of as constitutin" rebellion have beenembodied in the information, mention therein of murder as a comple3in"offense is a surplusa"e, because in an% case, the crime of rebellion is leftfull% described. *

At an% rate, the "overnment need onl% amend the information b% a clericalcorrection, since an amendment $ill not alter its substance.

dissent, ho$ever, insofar as the ma8orit% orders the remand of the matter of

bail to the lo$er court. ta:e it that $hen $e, in our Resolution of March 7,*++>, "ranted the petitioner #provisional libert%# upon the filin" of a bond ofP*>>,>>>.>>, $e "ranted him bail. &he fact that $e "ave him #provisionallibert%# is in m% vie$, of no moment, because bail means provisional libert%.t $ill serve no useful purpose to have the trial court hear the incident a"ain$hen $e ourselves have been satisfied that the petitioner is entitled totemporar% freedom.

P")ILL", J., dissentin"4

concur in the ma8orit% opinion insofar as it holds that the rulin" in (eople

*s. ernande& ++ Phil. * #remains bindin" doctrine operatin" to prohibitthe comple3in" of rebellion $ith an% other offense committed on theoccasion thereof, either as a means necessar% to its commission or as anunintended effect of an activit% that constitutes rebellion.#

dissent, ho$ever, from the ma8orit% opinion insofar as it holds that theinformation in 2uestion, $hile char"in" the comple3 crime of rebellion $ithmurder and multiple frustrated murder, is to be read as charging simple

rebellion.

&he present cases are to be distin"uished from the ernande& case in at

least one */ material respect. n theernande& case, this Court $asconfronted $ith an appealed case, i.e., 9ernande! had been convicted b%the trial court of the comple3 crime of rebellion $ith murder, arson androbber%, and his plea to be released on bail before the 1upreme Court,pendin" appeal, "ave birth to the no$ celebrated ernande& doctrine thatthe crime of rebellion comple3ed $ith murder, arson and robber% does note3ist. n the present cases, on the other hand, the Court is confronted $ithan original case, i.e., $here an information has been recentl% filed in the trialcourt and the petitioners have not even pleaded thereto.

Furthermore, the 1upreme Court, in the ernande& case, $as #"round-

brea:in"# on the issue of $hether rebellion can be comple3ed $ith murder,arson, robber%, etc. n the present cases, on the other hand, the prosecutionand the lo$er court, not onl% had the ernande& doctrine as case la+ /, butE3ecutive 'rder No. *5? of President Cora!on C. A2uino dated une *+5?as statutor" la+ / to bind them to the le"al proposition that the crime of

rebellion comple2ed +ith murder and multiple frustrated murder does not

e2ist.

And %et, not$ithstandin" these unmista0able and controlling beacon li"hts-absent $hen this Court laid do$n theernande& doctrine-the prosecutionhas insisted in filin", and the lo$er court has persisted in hearin", aninformation char"in" the petitioners $ith rebellion comple3ed $ith murder an

multiple frustrated murder. ,hat information is clearl" a nullit" and plainl"*oid ab initio. ts head should not be allo$ed to surface. As a nullit% insubstantive la$, it char"es nothin"K it has "iven rise to nothin". &he $arrantsof arrest issued pursuant thereto are as null and void as the information on$hich the% are anchored. And, since the entire 2uestion of the information@svalidit% is before the Court in these habeas corpus cases, venture to sa%that the information is fatall" defecti*eeven under procedural la$, because itchar"es more than one */ offense 1ec. *), Rule **>, Rules of Court/.



submit then that it is not for this Court to ener"i!e a dead and, at best,fatall% decrepit information b% labellin" or #bapti!in"# it differentl% from $hat itannounces itself to be. &he prosecution must file an entirel" ne+ and

proper information, for this entire e3ercise to merit the serious considerationof the courts.

ACC'R0NJ, vote to RAN& the petitions, G<A19 the $arrants ofarrest, and 'R0ER the information for rebellion comple3ed $ith murder andmultiple frustrated murder in Criminal Case Nos. +>-*>+6*, R&C of Gue!onCit%, 01M11E0.

Conse2uentl%, the petitioners should be ordered permanentl% released andtheir bails cancelled.

(aras J. concurs.

Se&#r#te O&'$'o$(

MELENCIO-HERRER", J., concurrin"4

8oin m% collea"ues in holdin" that the ernande& doctrine, $hich has been$ith us for the past three decades, remains "ood la$ and, thus, shouldremain undisturbed, despite periodic challen"es to it that, ironicall%, haveonl% served to stren"then its pronouncements.

ta:e e3ception to the vie$, ho$ever, that habeas corpus $as not the proper remed%.

9ad the nformation filed belo$ char"ed merel% the simple crime ofRebellion, that proposition could have been plausible. But that nformationchar"ed Rebellion comple3ed $ith Murder and Multiple Frustrated Murder, acrime $hich does not e3ist in our statute boo:s. &he char"e $as obviousl%intended to ma:e the penalt% for the most serious offense in its ma3imum

period imposable upon the offender pursuant to Article 65 of the RevisedPenal Code. &hus, no bail $as recommended in the nformation nor $as an%prescribed in the Darrant of Arrest issued b% the &rial Court.

<nder the attendant circumstances, therefore, to have filed a Motion toGuash before the lo$er Court $ould not have brou"ht about the speed%

relief from unla$ful restraint that petitioner $as see:in". 0urin" thependenc% of said Motion before the lo$er Court, petitioner could havecontinued to lan"uish in detention. Besides, the Drit of abeas Corpus ma%still issue even if another remed%, $hich is less effective, ma% be availed ofChave! vs. Court of Appeals, (6 1CRA 77)/.

t is true that habeas corpus $ould ordinaril% not he $hen a person is undercustod% b% virtue of a process issued b% a Court.

&he Court, ho$ever, must have 8urisdiction to issue the process. n this case,the Court belo$ must be deemed to have been ousted of 8urisdiction $hen it

ille"all% curtailed petitioner@s libert%. 9abeas corpus is thus available.

&he $rit of habeas corpus is available to relieve personsfrom unla$ful restraint. But $here the detention orconfinement is the result of a process issued b% the courtor 8ud"e or b% virtue of a 8ud"ment or sentence, the $ritordinaril% cannot be availed of. t ma" still be in*o0ed

though if the process judgment or sentence proceeded

from a court or tribunal the jurisdiction of +hich ma" be

assailed. $*en if it had authorit" to act at the outset it is

no+ the pre*ailing doctrine that a depri*ation of

constitutional right if sho+n to e2ist +ould oust it of

jurisdiction. n such a case habeas corpus could be relied

upon to regain one=s libert" Celeste vs. People, )* 1CRA)+*/ Emphasis emphasisQ.

&he Petition for habeas corpus $as precisel% premised on the violation ofpetitioner@s constitutional ri"ht to bail inasmuch as rebellion, under thepresent state of the la$, is a bailable offense and the crime for $hichpetitioner stands accused of and for $hich he $as denied bail is non-e3istentin la$.



Dhile liti"ants should, as a rule, ascend the steps of the 8udicial ladder,nothin" should stop this Court f rom ta:in" co"ni!ance of petitions brou"htbefore it raisin" ur"ent constitutional issues, an% procedural fla$not$ithstandin".

&he rules on habeas corpus are to be liberall% construed

ana$a% v. Guilen, 6( Phil. 5>/, the $rit of habeascorpus bein" the fundamental instrument for safe"uardin"individual freedom a"ainst arbitrar% and la$less stateaction. &he scope and fle3ibilit% of the $rit-its capacit% toreach all manner of ille"al detention-its abilit" to cut

through barriers of form and procedural ma&es-haveal$a%s been emphasi!ed and 8ealousl% "uarded b% courtsand la$ma:ers umabon v. 0irector of Bureau ofPrisons, )? 1CRA 6(>/ emphasis suppliedQ.

&he proliferation of cases in this Court, $hich follo$ed in the $a:e of this

Petition, $as brou"ht about b% the insistence of the prosecution to char"ethe crime of Rebellion comple3ed $ith other common offensesnot$ithstandin" the fact that this Court had not %et ruled on the validit% ofthat char"e and had "ranted provisional libert% to petitioner.

f, indeed, it is desired to ma:e the crime of Rebellion a capital offense no$punishable b% reclusion perpetua/, the remed% lies in le"islation. But Article*6(-A 1 of the Revised Penal Code, alon" $ith P.0. No. +6(, $ere repealed,for bein" #repressive,# b% E' No. *5? on une *+5?. E' *5? furthere3plicitl% provided that Article *)6 and others enumerated/ of the RevisedPenal Code $as #restored to its full force and effect as it e3isted before saidamendator% decrees.# 9avin" been so repealed, this Court is bereft of po$er

to le"islate into e3istence, under the "uise of re-e3aminin" a settled doctrine,a #creature un:no$n in la$#- the comple3 crime of Rebellion $ith Murder.&he remand of the case to the lo$er Court for further proceedin"s is in order.&he Drit of abeas Corpushas served its purpose.

GUTIERRE!, R., J., concurrin"4

8oin the Court@s decision to "rant the petition. n reiteratin" the rule thatunder e3istin" la$ rebellion ma% not be comple3ed $ith murder, the Courtemphasi!es that it cannot le"islate a ne$-crime into e3istence nor prescribea penalt% for its commission. &hat function is e3clusivel% for Con"ress.

$rite this separate opinion to ma:e clear ho$ vie$ certain issues arisin"

from these cases, especiall% on ho$ the defective informations filed b% theprosecutors should have been treated.

a"ree $ith the ponente that a petition for habeas corpus is ordinaril% not theproper procedure to assert the ri"ht to bail. <nder the special circumstancesof this case, ho$ever, the petitioners had no other recourse. &he% had tocome to us.

First, the trial court $as certainl% a$are of the decision in People v.9ernande!, ++ Phil. * *+7/ that there is no such crime in our statuteboo:s as rebellion comple3ed $ith murder, that murder committed in

connection $ith a rebellion is absorbed b% the crime of rebellion, and that aresort to arms resultin" in the destruction of life or propert% constitutesneither t$o or more offenses nor a comple3 crime but one crime-rebellionpure and simple.

1econd, ernande& has been the la$ for )6 %ears. t has been reiterated ine2uall% sensational cases. All la$%ers and even la$ students are a$are ofthe doctrine. Attempts to have the doctrine re-e3amined have beenconsistentl% re8ected b% this Court.

&hird, President Marcos throu"h the use of his then le"islative po$ers,issued Pres. 0ecree +6(, thereb% installin" the ne$ crime of rebellioncomple3ed $ith offenses li:e murder $here "raver penalties are imposed b%la$. 9o$ever, President A2uino usin" her then le"islative po$ers e3pressl%repealed P0 +6( b% issuin" E3ec. 'rder *5?. 1he thereb% erased the crimeof rebellion comple3ed $ith murder and made it clear thatthe ernande& doctrine remains the controllin" rule. &he prosecution has note3plained $h% it insists on resurrectin" an offense e3pressl% $iped out b%the President. &he prosecution, in effect, 2uestions the action of thePresident in repealin" a repressive decree, a decree $hich, accordin" to therepeal order, is violative of human ri"hts.



Fourth, an% re-e3amination of the 9ernande! doctrine brin"s the e3 postfacto principle into the picture. 0ecisions of this Court form part of our le"als%stem. Even if $e declare that rebellion ma% be comple3ed $ith murder,our declaration can not be made retroactive $here the effect is to imprison aperson for a crime $hich did not e3ist until the 1upreme Court reverseditself.

And fifth, the attempts to distin"uish this case from the ernande& case b%stressin" that the :illin"s char"ed in the information $ere committed #on theoccasion of, but not a necessar% means for, the commission of rebellion#result in outlandish conse2uences and i"nore the basic nature of rebellion.&hus, under the prosecution theor% a bomb dropped on P&-6 $hich :ills"overnment troopers results in simple rebellion because the act is anecessar% means to ma:e the rebellion succeed. 9o$ever, if the samebomb also :ills some civilians in the nei"hborhood, the droppin" of the bombbecomes rebellion comple3ed $ith murder because the :illin" of civilians isnot necessar% for the success of a rebellion and, therefore, the :illin"s areonl% #on the occasion of but not a @necessar% means for@ the commission ofrebellion.

&his ar"ument is puerile.

&he crime of rebellion consists of man% acts. &he droppin" of one bombcannot be isolated as a separate crime of rebellion. Neither should thedroppin" of one hundred bombs or the f irin" of thousands of machine "unbullets be bro:en up into a hundred or thousands of separate offenses, ifeach bomb or each bullet happens to result in the destruction of life andpropert%. &he same act cannot be punishable b% separate penalties

dependin" on $hat stri:es the fanc% of prosecutors-punishment for the :il lin"of soldiers or retribution for the deaths of civilians. &he prosecution alsoloses si"ht of the re"rettable fact that in total $ar and in rebellion the :illin"of civilians, the la%in" $aste of civilian economies, the massacre of innocentpeople, the blo$in" up of passen"er airplanes, and other acts of terrorismare all used b% those en"a"ed in rebellion. De cannot and should not t r% toascertain the intent of rebels for each sin"le act unless the act is plainl% notconnected to the rebellion. De cannot use Article 65 of the Revised PenalCode in lieu of still-to- be-enacted le"islation. &he :illin" of civilians durin" arebel attac: on militar% facilities furthers the rebellion and is part of therebellion.

&he trial court $as certainl% a$are of all the above considerations. cannotunderstand $h% the trial ud"e issued the $arrant of arrest $hichcate"oricall% states therein that the accused +as not entitled to bail . &hepetitioner $as compelled to come to us so he $ould not be arrested +ithout

bail for a none3istent crime. &he trial court for"ot to appl% an establisheddoctrine of the 1upreme Court. Dorse, it issued a $arrant $hich reversed )6%ears of established procedure based on a $ell-:no$n 1upreme Courtrulin".

All courts should remember that the% form part of an independent 8udicials%stemK the% do not belon" to the prosecution service. A court should never

pla% into the hands of the prosecution and blindl% compl% $ith its erroneousmanifestations. Faced $ith an information char"in" a manifestl% non-e3istentcrime, the dut" of a trial court is to thro+ it out. 'r, at the ver% least and$here possible, ma:e it conform to the la$.

A lo$er court cannot re-e3amine and reverse a decision of the 1upremeCourt especiall% a decision consistentl% follo$ed for )6 %ears. Dhere aud"e disa"rees $ith a 1upreme Court rulin", he is free to e3press hisreservations in the bod% of his decision, order, or resolution. 9o$ever, an%



8ud"ment he renders, an% order he prescribes, and an% processes heissues must follo+ the Supreme Court precedent. A trial court has no 8urisdiction to reverse or i"nore precedents of the 1upreme Court. n thisparticular case, it should have been the 1olicitor eneral comin" to thisCourt to 2uestion the lo$er court@s re8ection of the application for a $arrantof arrest $ithout bail. t should have been the 1olicitor-eneral provo:in" the

issue of re-e3amination instead of the petitioners as:in" to be freed fromtheir arrest for a non-e3istent crime.

&he principle bears repeatin"4

Respondent Court of Appeals reall% $as devoid of an%choice at all. t could not have ruled in an% other $a% onthe le"al 2uestion raised. &his &ribunal havin" spo:en, itsdut% $as to obe%. t is as simple as that. &here isrelevance to this e3cerpt from Barrera v. Barrera. -)*5+, ul% )*, *+?>, )6 1CRA +5/ @&he delicate tas: of

ascertainin" the si"nificance that attaches to aconstitutional or statutor% provision, an e3ecutive order, aprocedural norm or a municipal ordinance is committed tothe 8udiciar%. t thus dischar"es a role no less crucial thanthat appertainin" to the other t$o departments in themaintenance of the rule of la$. &o assure stabilit% in le"alrelations and avoid confusion, it has to spea: $ith onevoice. t does so $ith finalit%, lo"icall% and ri"htl%, throu"hthe hi"hest 8udicial or"an, this Court. Dhat it sa%s thenshould be definitive and authoritative, bindin" on thoseoccup%in" the lo$er ran:s in the 8udicial hierarch%. &he%have to defer and to submit.@ bid , *>?. &he opinion of

ustice aurel in People v. era, 7 Phil. 7 *+)?Q $ascited/. &he ensuin" para"raph of the opinion in Barrerafurther emphasi!es the point4 1uch a thou"ht $asreiterated in an opinion of ustice .B.. Re%es and further emphasi!ed in these $ords4 @ud"e audencio Cloribelneed not be reminded that the 1upreme Court, b% traditionand in our s%stem of 8udicial administration, has the last$ord on $hat the la$ isK it is the final arbiter of an% 8ustifiable controvers%. &here is onl% one 1upreme Courtfrom $hose decisions all other courts should ta:e their

bearin"s. bid . ustice .B.. Re%es spo:e thus in Albert v.Court of First nstance of Manila Br. /, -(7)76, Ma% (+,*+75, () 1CRA +65, +7*. &u"ade v. Court of Appeals, 51CRA ((7 *+?5Q. 1ee also Albert v. Court of Firstnstance, () 1CRA +65 *+75Q and ir-en 1hippin" andMarine 1ervices, nc. v. NRC, *( 1CRA ?? *+5)Q/

find the situation in Spouses (anlilio *. (rosecutors #ernando de Leon et

al. even more ine3plicable. n the case of the Panlilios, an% probable causeto commit the non- e3istent crime of rebellion comple3ed $ith murder e3istsonl% in the minds of the prosecutors, not in the records of the case.

have "one over the records and pleadin"s furnished to the members of the1upreme Court. listened intentl% to the oral ar"uments durin" the hearin"and it $as 2uite apparent that the constitutional re2uirement of probablecause $as not satisfied. n fact, in ans$er to m% 2uer% for an% other proofsto support the issuance of a $arrant of arrest, the ans$er $as that the

e*idence +ould be submitted in due time to the trial court.

&he spouses Panlilio and one parent have been in the restaurant businessfor decades. <nder the records of these petitions, an% restaurant o$ner orhotel mana"er $ho serves food to rebels is a co-conspirator in the rebellion.&he absurdit% of this proposition is apparent if $e bear in mind that rebelsride in buses and 8eepne%s, eat meals in rural houses $hen mealtime findsthem in the vicinit%, 8oin $eddin"s, fiestas, and other parties, pla% bas:etball$ith barrio %ouths, attend masses and church services and other$ise mi3$ith people in various "atherin"s. Even if the hosts reco"ni!e them to berebels and fail to shoo them a$a%, it does not necessaril% follo$ that theformer are co-conspirators in a rebellion.

&he onl% basis for probable cause sho$n b% the records of the Panlilio caseis the alle"ed fact that the petitioners served food to rebels at the Enrilehousehold and a hotel supervisor as:ed t$o or three of their $aiters, $ithoutreason, to "o on a vacation. Clearl%, a much, much stron"er sho$in" ofprobable cause must be sho$n.

n Salonga *. Cru& (a/o *)6 1CRA 6)5 *+5/, then 1enator 1alon"a $aschar"ed as a conspirator in the heinous bombin" of innocent civilians



because the man $ho planted the bomb had, sometime earlier, appeared ina "roup photo"raph ta:en durin" a birthda% part% in the <nited 1tates $iththe 1enator and other "uests. t $as a case of conspirac% proved throu"h a"roup picture. 9ere, it is a case of conspirac% sou"ht to proved throu"h thecaterin" of food.

&he Court in Salonga stressed4

&he purpose of a preliminar% investi"ation is to secure theinnocent a"ainst hast%, malicious and oppressiveprosecution, and to protect him f rom an open and publicaccusation of crime, from the trouble, e3pense and an3iet%of a public trial, and also to protect the state from uselessand e3pensive trials. &rocio v. Manta, **5 1CRA (6*Kcitin" 9ashimn v. Boncan, ?* Phil. (*7/. &he ri"ht to apreliminar% investi"ation is a statutor% "rant, and to$ithhold it $ould be to trans"ress constitutional due

process. 1ee People v. 'andasa, ( 1CRA (??/9o$ever, in order to satisf% the due process clause it isnot enou"h that the preliminar% investi"ation is conductedin the sense of ma:in" sure that a trans"ressor shall notescape $ith impunit%. A preliminar% investi"ation servesnot onl% the purposes of the 1tate. More important, it is apart of the "uarantees of freedom and fair pla% $hich arebirthri"hts of all $ho live in our countr%. t is, therefore,imperative upon the fiscal or the 8ud"e as the case ma%be, to relieve the accused from the pain of "oin" throu"h atrial once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficientto sustain a prima facie case or that no probable cause

e3ists to form a sufficient belief as to the "uilt of theaccused. Althou"h there is no "eneral formula or f i3ed rulefor the determination of probable cause since the samemust be decided in the li"ht of the conditions obtainin" in"iven situations and its e3istence depends to a lar"ede"ree upon the findin" or opinion of the 8ud"e conductin"the e3amination, such a findin" should not disre"ard thefacts before the 8ud"e nor run counter to the clear dictatesof reason 1ee a Chemise acoste, 1.A. v. Fernande!,*(+ 1CRA )+*/. &he 8ud"e or fiscal, therefore, should not

"o on $ith the prosecution in the hope that some credibleevidence mi"ht later turn up durin" trial for this $ould be afla"rant violation of a basic ri"ht $hich the courts arecreated to uphold. t bears repeatin" that the 8udiciar% livesup to its mission b% vitali!in" and not deni"ratin"constitutional ri"hts. 1o it has been before. t should

continue to be so. id ., pp. 67*- 67(/

Because of the fore"oin", ta:e e3ception to that part of the ponencia $hich$ill read the informations as char"in" simple rebellion. &his case did notarise from innocent error. f an information char"es murder but its contentssho$ onl% the in"redients of homicide, the ud"e ma% ri"htl% read it aschar"in" homicide. n these cases, ho$ever, there is a deliberate attempt tochar"e the petitioners for an offense $hich this Court has ruled as non-e3istent. &he prosecution $anted 9ernande! to be reversed. 1ince theprosecution has filed informations for a crime $hich, under our rulin"s, doesnot e3ist, those informations should be treated as null and void. Ne$informations char"in" the correct offense should be filed. And in .R. No.+(*76, an e3tra effort should be made to see $hether or not the Principlein Salonga *. Cru& (atio et al. >supra? has been violated.

&he Court is not, in an% $a%, preventin" the overnment from usin" moreeffective $eapons to suppress rebellion. f the overnment feels that thecurrent situation calls for the imposition of more severe penalties li:e deathor the creation of ne$ crimes li:e rebellion comple3ed $ith murder, theremed% is $ith Con"ress, not the courts.

, therefore, vote to RAN& the petitions and to 'R0ER the respondentcourt to 01M11 the void informations for a non-e3istent crime.

FELICI"NO, J., concurrin"4

concur in the result reached b% the ma8orit% of the Court.

believe that there are certain aspects of the ernande& doctrine that, as anabstract 2uestion of la$, could stand ree3amination or clarification. have in



mind in particular matters such as the correct or appropriate relationshipbet$een Article *)6 and Article *) of the Revised Penal Code. &his is amatter $hich relates to the le"al concept of rebellion in our le"al s%stem. fone e3amines the actual terms of Article *)6 entitled4 #Rebellion ornsurrection-9o$ Committed#/, it $ould appear that this Article specifies boththe o*ert acts and the criminal purpose $hich, $hen put to"ether, $ould

constitute the offense of rebellion. &hus, Article *)6 states that #the crime ofrebellion is committed b% risin" publicl% and ta:in" arms a"ainst theovernment #i.e., the overt acts comprisin" rebellion/, #for the purpose ofi.e., the specific criminal intent or political ob8ective/ removin" from thealle"iance to said "overnment or its la$s the territor% of the Republic of thePhilippines or an% part thereof, or an% bod% of land, naval or other armedforces, or deprivin" the Chief E3ecutive or the e"islature, $holl% or partiall%,of their po$ers or prero"atives.# At the same time, Article *) entitled4#Penalt% for Rebellion or nsurrection.#/ sets out a listin" of acts or particularmeasures $hich appear to fall under the rubric of rebellion or insurrection4#en"a"in" in $ar a"ainst the forces of the overnment, destro%in" propert%or committin" serious violence, e3actin" contributions or divertin" public

funds from the la$ful purpose for $hich the% have been appropriated.# Arethese modalities of rebellion generall"@ 'r are the% particular modes b%$hich those #$ho promote A B maintain A B or head A B a rebellion or

insurrection commit rebellion, or particular modes of participation in arebellion b" public officers or emplo"ees@ Clearl%, the scope of the le"alconcept of rebellion relates to the distinction bet$een, on the one hand, theindispensable acts or in"redients of the crime of rebellion under the RevisedPenal Code and, on the other hand, differin" optional modes of see:in" tocarr% out the political or social ob8ective of the rebellion or insurrection.

&he difficult% that is at once raised b% an% effort to e3amine once more even

the above threshold 2uestions is that the results of such re-e3amination ma%$ell be that acts $hich under the ernande& doctrine are absorbed intorebellion, ma% be characteri!ed as separate or discrete offenses $hich, as amatter of la$, can either be prosecuted separatel% from rebellion orprosecuted under the provisions of Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code,$hich both Clause * and Clause ( thereof/ clearl% envisa"e the e3istence of at least t$o (/ distinct offenses. &o reach such a conclusion in the case atbar, $ould, as far as can see, result in collidin" $ith the fundamental non-retroactivit% principle Article 6, Civil CodeK Article ((, Revised Penal CodeKboth in relation to Article 5, Civil Code/.

&he non-retroactivit% rule applies to statutes principall%. But, statutes do note3ist in the abstract but rather bear upon the lives of people $ith the specificform "iven them b% 8udicial decisions interpretin" their norms. udicialdecisions construin" statutor% norms "ive specific shape and content to suchnorms. n time, the statutor% norms become encrusted $ith the "lossesplaced upon them b% the courts and the "losses become inte"ral $ith the

norms Cf Calte2 *. (alomar , *5 1CRA (6? *+77Q/. &hus, $hile in le"altheor%, 8udicial interpretation of a statute becomes part of the la$ as of thedate that the la$ $as ori"inall% enacted, believe this theor% is not to beapplied ri"orousl% $here a ne$ 8udicial doctrine is announced, in particularone overrulin" a previous e3istin" doctrine of lon" standin" here, )7 %ears/and most speciall% not $here the statute construed is criminal in nature andthe ne$ doctrine is more onerous for the accused than the pre-e3istin" onePeople v. abinal, 1CRA 7>? *+?6QK People v. icera, 7 1CRA (?>*+?QK umabon v. 0irector of Prisons, )? 1CRA 6(> *+?*Q/. Moreover, thenon-retroactivit% rule $hether in respect of le"islative acts or 8udicialdecisions has constitutional implications. &he prevailin" rule in the <nited1tates is that a 8udicial decision that retroactivel% renders an act criminal or

enhances the severit% of the penalt% prescribed for an offense, is vulnerableto constitutional challen"e based upon the rule a"ainst e3 post facto la$sand the due process clause Bouie v. Cit% of Columbia, )?5 <1 )6?,*( .Ed. (d 5+6 *+76QK Mar:s v. <.1., 6) <1 *55, * . Ed. (d (7> *+??QK0evine v. Ne$ Me3ico 0epartment of Corrections, 577 F. (d ))+ *+5+Q/.

t is ur"ed b% the 1olicitor eneral that the non-retroactivit% principle doesnot present an% real problem for the reason that the ernande& doctrine $asbased upon Article 65, second clause, of the Revised Penal Code and notupon the first clause thereof, $hile it is precisel% the first clause of Article 65that the overnment here invo:es. t is, ho$ever, open to serious doubt

$hether ernande& can reasonabl% be so simpl% and sharpl% characteri!ed. And assumin" the ernande& could be so characteri!ed, subse2uent casesrefer to the ernande& doctrine in terms $hich do not distin"uish clearl%bet$een the first clause and the second clause of Article 65 e."., People v.eronimo, *>> Phil. +> *+7QK People v. Rodri"ue!, *>? Phil. 7+ *+7>Q/.&hus, it appears to me that the critical 2uestion $ould be $hether a man ofordinar% intelli"ence $ould have necessaril% read or understoodthe ernande& doctrine as referrin" e3clusivel% to Article 65, second clause.Put in sli"htl% different terms, the important 2uestion $ould be $hether thene$ doctrine here proposed b% the overnment could fairl% have been



derived b% a man of avera"e intelli"ence or counsel of avera"e competencein the la$/ from an e3amination of Articles *)6 and *) of the Revised PenalCode as interpreted b% the Court in the ernande& and subse2uent cases.&o formulate the 2uestion ill these terms $ould almost be to compel ane"ative ans$er, especiall% in vie$ of the conclusions reached b% the Courtand its several Members toda%.

Finall%, there appears to be no 2uestion that the ne$ doctrine that theovernment $ould have us discover for the first time since the promul"ationof the Revised Penal Code in *+)(, $ould be more onerous for therespondent accused than the simple application of the ernande& doctrinethat murders $hich have been committed on the occasion of and infurtherance of the crime of rebellion must be deemed absorbed in theoffense of simple rebellion.

a"ree therefore that the information in this case must be vie$ed aschar"in" onl% the crime of simple rebellion.

FERN"N, C.J., concurrin" and dissentin"4

am constrained to $rite this separate opinion on $hat seems to be a ri"idadherence to the *+7 rulin" of the Court. &he numerous challen"es to thedoctrine enunciated in the case of (eople *s. ernande& ++ Phil. **+7/ should at once demonstrate the need to redefine the applicabilit% ofsaid doctrine so as to ma:e it conformable $ith accepted and $ell-settledprinciples of criminal la$ and 8urisprudence.

&o m% mind, the 9ernande! doctrine should not be interpreted as an all-embracin" authorit% for the rule that all common crimes committed on theoccasion, or in furtherance of, or in connection $ith, rebellion are absorbedb% the latter. &o that e3tent, cannot "o alon" $ith the vie$ of the ma8orit% inthe instant case that @9ernande! remains bindin" doctrine operatin" toprohibit the comple3in" of rebellion $ith an% other offense committed on theoccasion thereof, either as a means necessar% to its commission or as anunintended effect of an activit% that constitutes rebellion# p. +, 0ecision/.

&he 9ernande! doctrine has served the purpose for $hich it $as appealedb% the Court in *+7 durin" the communist-inspired rebellion of the 9u:s.&he chan"es in our societ% in the span of )6 %ears since then have far-reachin" effects on the all-embracin" applicabilit% of the doctrine considerin"the emer"ence of alternative modes of sei!in" the po$ers of the dul%constituted overnment not contemplated in Articles *)6 and *) of the

Revised Penal Code and their conse2uent effects on the lives of our people.&he doctrine $as "ood la$ then, but believe that there is a certain aspectof the 9ernande! doctrine that needs clarification.

Dith all due respect to the vie$s of m% brethren in the Court, believe thatthe Court, in the instant case, should have further considered that distinctionbet$een acts or offenses $hich are indispensable in the commission ofrebellion, on the one hand, and those acts or offenses that are merel"

necessar" but not indispensable in the commission of rebellion, on the other.&he ma8orit% of the Court is correct in adoptin", albeit impliedl%, the vie$ in9ernande! case that $hen an offense perpetrated as a necessar% means ofcommittin" another, $hich is an element of the latter, the resultin"interloc:in" crimes should be considered as onl% one simple offense andmust be deemed outside the operation of the comple3 crime provisionArticle 65/ of the Revised Penal Code. As in the case of 9ernande!, theCourt, ho$ever, failed in the instant case to distin"uish $hat is indispensablefrom $hat is merel% necessar% in the commission of an offense, resultin"thus in the rule that common crimes li:e murder, arson, robber%, etc.committed in the course or on the occasion of rebellion are absorbed orincluded in the latter as elements thereof.

&he relevance of the distinction is si"nificant, more particularl%, if applied tocontemporaneous events happenin" in our countr% toda%. &heoreticall%, a

crime $hich is indispensable in the commission of another must necessaril%be an element of the latterK but a crime that is merel% necessar% but notindispensable in the commission of another is not an element of the latter,and if and $hen actuall% committed, brin"s the interloc:in" crime $ithin theoperation of the comple3 crime provision Art. 65/ of the Revised PenalCode. Dith that distinction, common crimes committed a"ainst overnmentforces and propert% in the course of rebellion are properl% consideredindispensable overt acts of rebellion and are lo"icall% absorbed in it as virtualin"redients or elements thereof, but common crimes committed a"ainst thecivilian population in the course or on the occasion of rebellion and in



furtherance thereof, ma% be necessar% but not indispensable in committin"the latter, and ma%, therefore, not be considered as elements of the saidcrime of rebellion. &o illustrate, the deaths occurrin" durin" armedconfrontation or clashes bet$een "overnment forces and the rebels areabsorbed in the rebellion, and $ould be those resultin" from the bombin" ofmilitar% camps and installations, as these acts are indispensable in carr%in"

out the rebellion. But deliberatel% shootin" do$n an unarmed innocentcivilian to instill fear or create chaos amon" the people, althou"h done in thefurtherance of the rebellion, should not be absorbed in the crime of rebellionas the felonious act is merel% necessar%, but not indispensable. n the lattercase, Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code should appl%.

&he occurrence of a coup d@ etat in our countr% as a mode of sei!in" thepo$ers of the dul%-constituted "overnment b% sta"in" surprise attac:s oroccup%in" centers of po$ers, of $hich this Court should ta:e 8udicial notice,has introduced a ne$ dimension to the interpretation of the provisions onrebellion and insurrection in the Revised Penal Code. enerall%, as a modeof sei!in" the po$ers of the dul% constituted "overnment, it falls $ithin thecontemplation of rebellion under the Revised Penal Code, but, strictl%construed, a coup d@etat per se is a class b% itself. &he manner of itse3ecution and the e3tent and ma"nitude of its effects on the lives of thepeople distin"uish a coup d@etat from the traditional definition and modes ofcommission attached b% the Revised Penal Code to the crime of rebellion asapplied b% the Court to the communist-inspired rebellion of the *+>@s. Acoup d@etat ma% be e3ecuted successfull% $ithout its perpetrators resortin"to the commission of other serious crimes such as murder, arson,:idnappin", robber%, etc. because of the element of surprise and the precisetimin" of its e3ecution. n e3treme cases $here murder, arson, robber%, andother common crimes are committed on the occasion of a coup d@ etat, the

distinction referred to above on $hat is necessar% and $hat is indispensablein the commission of the coup d@etat should be painsta:in"l% considered asthe Court should have done in the case of herein petitioners.

concur in the result insofar as the other issues are resolved b% the Courtbut ta:e e3ception to the vote of the ma8orit% on the broad application of the9ernande! doctrine.

I)IN, J., concurrin" and dissentin"4

concur $ith the ma8orit% opinion e3cept as re"ards the dispositive portionthereof $hich orders the remand of the case to the respondent 8ud"e forfurther proceedin"s to fi3 the amount of bail to be posted b% the petitioner.

submit that the proceedin"s need not be remanded to the respondent 8ud"efor the purpose of fi3in" bail since $e have construed the indictment herein

as char"in" simple rebellion, an offense $hich is bailable.Conse2uentl%,habeas corpus is the proper remed% available to petitioner asan accused $ho had been char"ed $ith simple rebellion, a bailable offensebut $ho had been denied his ri"ht to bail b% the respondent 8ud"e in violationof petitioner@s constitutional ri"ht to bail. n vie$ thereof, the responsibilit% offi3in" the amount of bail and approval thereof $hen filed, devolves upon us,if complete relief is to be accorded to petitioner in the instant proceedin"s.

t is indubitable that before conviction, admission to bail is a matter of ri"ht tothe defendant, accused before the Re"ional &rial Court of an offense lessthan capital 1ection *) Article , Constitution and 1ection ), Rule **6/.Petitioner is, before <s, on a petition for habeas corpus pra%in", amon"others, for his provisional release on bail. 1ince the offense char"edconstrued as simple rebellion/ admits of bail, it is incumbent upon us m thee3ercise of our 8urisdiction over the petition for habeas corpus 1ection */, Article , ConstitutionK 1ection (, Rule *>(/, to "rant petitioner his ri"ht tobail and havin" admitted him to bail, to fi3 the amount thereof in such sumsas the court deems reasonable. &hereafter, the rules re2uire that #theproceedin"s to"ether $ith the bond# shall forth$ith be certified to therespondent trial court 1ection *6, Rule *>(/.

Accordin"l%, the cash bond in the amount of P *>>,>>>.>> posted b%petitioner for his provisional release pursuant to our resolution dated March

7, *++> should no$ be deemed and admitted as his bail bond for hisprovisional release in the case simple rebellion/ pendin" before therespondent 8ud"e, $ithout necessit% of a remand for further proceedin"s,conditioned for his petitioner@s/ appearance before the trial court to abide itsorder or 8ud"ment in the said case.

S"RMIENTO, J., concurrin" and dissentin"4



a"ree that People v. 9ernande! 1 should abide. More than three decadesafter $hich it $as penned, it has firml% settled in the tomes of our 8urisprudence as correct doctrine.

As 9ernande! put it, rebellion means #en"a"in" m $ar a"ainst the forces ofthe "overnment,# / $hich implies #resort to arms, re2uisition of propert% and

services, collection of ta3es and contributions, restraint of libert%, dama"e topropert%, ph%sical in8uries and loss of life, and the hun"er, illness andunhappiness that $ar leaves in its $a:e. ...# $hether committed infurtherance, of as a necessar% means for the commission, or in the course,of rebellion. &o sa% that rebellion ma% be comple3ed $ith an% other offense,in this case murder, is to pla% into a contradiction in terms because e3actl%,rebellion includes murder, amon" other possible crimes.

also a"ree that the information ma% stand as an accusation for simplerebellion. 1ince the acts complained of as constitutin" rebellion have beenembodied in the information, mention therein of murder as a comple3in"offense is a surplusa"e, because in an% case, the crime of rebellion is leftfull% described. *

At an% rate, the "overnment need onl% amend the information b% a clericalcorrection, since an amendment $ill not alter its substance.

dissent, ho$ever, insofar as the ma8orit% orders the remand of the matter of bail to the lo$er court. ta:e it that $hen $e, in our Resolution of March 7,*++>, "ranted the petitioner #provisional libert%# upon the filin" of a bond ofP*>>,>>>.>>, $e "ranted him bail. &he fact that $e "ave him #provisionallibert%# is in m% vie$, of no moment, because bail means provisional libert%.t $ill serve no useful purpose to have the trial court hear the incident a"ain

$hen $e ourselves have been satisfied that the petitioner is entitled totemporar% freedom.

P")ILL", J., dissentin"4

concur in the ma8orit% opinion insofar as it holds that the rulin" in (eople

*s. ernande& ++ Phil. * #remains bindin" doctrine operatin" to prohibit

the comple3in" of rebellion $ith an% other offense committed on theoccasion thereof, either as a means necessar% to its commission or as anunintended effect of an activit% that constitutes rebellion.#

dissent, ho$ever, from the ma8orit% opinion insofar as it holds that theinformation in 2uestion, $hile char"in" the comple3 crime of rebellion $ith

murder and multiple frustrated murder, is to be read as charging simplerebellion.

&he present cases are to be distin"uished from the ernande& case in atleast one */ material respect. n theernande& case, this Court $asconfronted $ith an appealed case, i.e., 9ernande! had been convicted b%the trial court of the comple3 crime of rebellion $ith murder, arson androbber%, and his plea to be released on bail before the 1upreme Court,pendin" appeal, "ave birth to the no$ celebrated ernande& doctrine thatthe crime of rebellion comple3ed $ith murder, arson and robber% does note3ist. n the present cases, on the other hand, the Court is confronted $ithan original case, i.e., $here an information has been recentl% filed in the trialcourt and the petitioners have not even pleaded thereto.

Furthermore, the 1upreme Court, in the ernande& case, $as #"round-brea:in"# on the issue of $hether rebellion can be comple3ed $ith murder,arson, robber%, etc. n the present cases, on the other hand, the prosecutionand the lo$er court, not onl% had the ernande& doctrine as case la+ /, butE3ecutive 'rder No. *5? of President Cora!on C. A2uino dated une *+5?as statutor" la+ / to bind them to the le"al proposition that the crime of

rebellion comple2ed +ith murder and multiple frustrated murder does not

e2ist.

And %et, not$ithstandin" these unmista0able and controlling beacon li"hts-absent $hen this Court laid do$n theernande& doctrine-the prosecutionhas insisted in filin", and the lo$er court has persisted in hearin", aninformation char"in" the petitioners $ith rebellion comple3ed $ith murder anmultiple frustrated murder. ,hat information is clearl" a nullit" and plainl"

*oid ab initio. ts head should not be allo$ed to surface. As a nullit% insubstantive la$, it char"es nothin"K it has "iven rise to nothin". &he $arrantsof arrest issued pursuant thereto are as null and void as the information on$hich the% are anchored. And, since the entire 2uestion of the information@s



validit% is before the Court in these habeas corpus cases, venture to sa%that the information is fatall" defecti*eeven under procedural la$, because itchar"es more than one */ offense 1ec. *), Rule **>, Rules of Court/.

submit then that it is not for this Court to ener"i!e a dead and, at best,fatall% decrepit information b% labellin" or #bapti!in"# it differentl% from $hat it

announces itself to be. &he prosecution must file an entirel" ne+ and proper information, for this entire e3ercise to merit the serious considerationof the courts.

ACC'R0NJ, vote to RAN& the petitions, G<A19 the $arrants ofarrest, and 'R0ER the information for rebellion comple3ed $ith murder andmultiple frustrated murder in Criminal Case Nos. +>-*>+6*, R&C of Gue!onCit%, 01M11E0.

Conse2uentl%, the petitioners should be ordered permanentl% released andtheir bails cancelled.

(aras J. concurs.

Foot$ote(

* ++ Phil. * *+7/.

( People vs. ava, (5 1CRA ?( *+7/K People vs.eronimo, *>> Phil. +> *+7/K People vs. Roma"osa, *>)

Phil. (> *+5/K and People vs. Rodri"ue!, *>? Phil. 7+*+7>/.

) Rollo, .R. No. +(*7), pp. )(-)6.

6 Rollo, .R. No. +(*7), pp. )6 et se2.

Rollo, .R. No. +(*7), p. (7.

7 Rollo, .R. No. +(*7), pp. )>-)+.

? 'ri"inall% a petition for certiorari and prohibition $hichthe Court, upon motion of the petitioners, resolved to treatas a petition for habeas corpusK Rollo, .R. No. +(*76, pp.*(5-*(+.

5 Rollo, .R. No. +(*7), pp. 6>?-6**.

+ Fernan, C.., and Narvasa, Cortes and rino-A2uino,.

*> Fernan, C.. and Narvasa, .

*>-A &$o Members a on leave.

** E3ecutive 'rder No. *5? issued une , *+5?.

*( People vs. 9ernande!, supra at 6*-6).

*) d. at *.

*6 Rollo, .R. No. +(*7), pp. ?5-?+ and ?)-?7.

*6 Supra footnote 6.

* 1oliven vs. Ma:asiar, *7? 1CRA )+6.

*? Rollo, .R. No. +(*7), pp. 67-6?.

*5 1ec. (, Rule **?, Rules of Court.

*+ 'campo vs. Bernabe, ?? Phil. .

(> Rollo, .R. No. +(*76, pp. *(6-*(.



Melencio-9errera, ., 'pinion

* #AR&. *6(-A-Cases $here other offenses arecommitted.-Dhen b% reason or on the occasion of an% ofthe crimes penali!ed in this Chapter, acts $hich constituteoffenses upon $hich "raver penalties are imposed b% la$

are committed, the penalt% for the most serious offense inits ma3imum period shall be imposed upon the offender.#

1armiento, ., Concurrin"

* ++ Phil. * *+7/.

( Supra, (>.

) Supra, (*.

6 <1 v. 1antia"o, 6* Phil. ?+) *+*?/.




Manila

FR1& 01'N

G.R. No. L-88 "&r' 1, 1988

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs."N)RES M"NGL"LL"N + "R)"N #'#( @A# EBer,@ IRGILIO

"LLESTEROS + "N)R")" #'#( A# Fe'D #$% CES"R "L"RE! #'#(

@A# A#rte,@ #cc(e%, "N)RES M"NGL"LL"N + "R)"N #'#( @A#

EBer,@defendant-appellant.

,he Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Ruben $. !gpalo for appellant.

G"NC";CO, J.:

'n 1eptember ), *+?( in Barrio Punti East, 1ta. Ana, Ca"a%an, =a 0aniel$ho appears to be the leader of the Ne$ People@s Arm% NPA/ in the areadirected Andres Man"lallan, Cesar Alvare!, 0omin"o Ramos, and ir"ilioBallesteros, members of the NPA to "o to Barrio Punti and :ill one ApolonioRa"ual $ho $as suspected b% =a 0aniel to be a Philippine Constabular%PC/ informer. 1aid four $ent to the barrio of Ra"ual, Man"lallan carr%in" aBro$nin" shot"un, Ramos a &hompson, Alvare! a carbine and Ballesteros,a homemade "un called Bulldo", &he% arrived at Punti at +4>> A.M. and the%sa$ Ra"ual at the river ban: "ivin" his carabao a bath. Ramos $ent to himand after a $hile shot him $ith his "un. Man"lallan also shot him $ith hisBro$nin" follo$ed $ith another shot b% Alvare!, as a result of $hich Ra"ual

fell do$n and died. Man"lallan then placed on the dead bod% of Ra"ual a$ritin" and dra$in" made b% their association $arnin" the people and thePC of their activities. 1 &hereafter, the "roup returned and reported to =a0aniel that Ra"ual $as alread% dead. 0r. eonides Flores, the Municipal9ealth 'fficer of 1ta. Ana, Ca"a%an conducted a post-mortem e3aminationon the remains of Apolonio Ra"ual at about 64>> P.M. of the same da%, after

$hich he issued an autops% report/

sho$in" multiple "unshot $oundssuffered b% the deceased and findin" the cause of death to be severehemorrha"e, shoc: secondar% to multiple "unshot $ounds.

An information $as filed b% the provincial fiscal in the Court of First nstanceof Ca"a%an char"in" Andres Man"lallan, ir"ilio Ballesteros, and Cesar Alvare! of the crime of murder. 9o$ever, upon arrai"nment on accusedMan"lallan and Ballesteros $ere present as Alvares $as at lar"e. <ponmotion of the fiscal, Ballesteros $as dischar"ed from the information as a"overnment $itness. &he trial on the merits proceeded as a"ainstMan"lallan after $hich a decision $as rendered on March *+, *+?6, thedispositive part of $hich reads as follo$s4

DEREF'RE, in vie$ of the fore"oin" considerations, theCourt finds the accused Andres Man"lallan "uilt% be%ondreasonable doubt of the crime of murder, defined andpenali!ed under Article (65 of the Revised Penal Code,$ithout an% a""ravatin" or miti"atin" circumstanceoffsettin" each other, and hereb% sentences him to sufferreclusion perpetua to indemnif% the heirs of the victim inthe amount of &DEE &9'<1AN0 PE1'1P*(,>>>.>>/ $ithout, ho$ever, servin" subsidiar%imprisonment in case of insolvenc%K and to pa% the costs.

&he accused bein" a detention prisoner and havin" si"nedthe a"reement re2uired of detention prisoners b% Article(+ of the Revised Penal Code, As amended b% Republic Act No. 7*(?, is credited $ith the $hole period of hispreventive imprisonment in the service of his sentence.

Not satisfied there$ith, said accused interposed this appeal alle"in" that thelo$er court committed the follo$in" assi"ned errors4



First Assi"nment of Error

&9E 'DER C'<R& ERRE0 N N'& 9'0N &9A&&9E CRME C'MM&&E0 1 N'& M<R0ER B<& AP'&CA 'FFEN1E D9C9 E1 R1E &' &9EG<E1&'N A1 &' D9E&9ER & FA1 <N0ER &9E

AN&-1<BER1'N AC& 'R <N0ER AR&CE1 *)6 AN0 *) 'F &9E RE1E0 PENA C'0E.

1econd Assi"nment of Error

&9E 'DER C'<R& ERRE0 N N'& 9'0N &9A&0EFEN0AN&-APPEAN& C'<0 BE 9E0 ABEF'R 'NJ MERE MEMBER19P N &9E NEDPE'PE@1 ARMJ NPA/ D9C9 1 PENAE0 BJ ARRE1&' MAJ'R AN0 N'& F'R A RAER CRMEPENAE0 BJ PR1'N MAJ'R &' 0EA&9.

0EFEN0AN&-APPEAN& 9AN BEEN 0ENE0 'F91 1&A&<&'RJ R9& AN0 &9E &D'-D&NE11REG<REMEN& 'F &9E AN&- 1<BER1'N AC& N'&9AN BEEN C'MPE0 D&9.

&hird Assi"nment of Error

&9E 'DER C'<R& ERRE0 N N F<CRE0ENCE &' &9E &E1&M'NJ 'F BAE1&ER'1 AN0 N N'& 9'0N, A11<MMN REBE'N A1&9E APPCABE 'F &EN1E. &9A& 0EFEN0AN&- APPEAN& C'<0, F A& A, BE 9E0 ABE

MEREJ A1 AN ACC'MPCE N &9E CRME 'FREBE'N.

Fourth Assi"nment of Error

&9E &RA C'<R& ERRE0 N N'& APPRECA&N'<N&ARJ 1<RREN0ER A1 A M&A&NCRC<M1&ANCE.

After the briefs of the parties $ere filed, the defendant-appellant filed amotion to $ithdra$ the appeal on 'ctober (, *+?? as he had lost interest inthe same and is convinced that the decision appealed from is in accordance$ith la$ and the evidence.

&he 1olicitor eneral $as re2uired to comment on this motion and he

recommended the denial of the motion to $ithdra$ the appeal in vie$ of therecommendation in the People@s brief that accused-appellant should beconvicted of the lesser offense of simple rebellion $hich is more favorable tothe appellant. &he counsel de oficio for the appellant, in repl% to the saidcomment stated that he a"rees $ith the d comment of the 1olicitor eneraland as:ed that the appeal be decided at the earliest possible time. Appellantfiled a separate manifestation and motion statin" his interest to pursue theappeal. &he motion $as "ranted b% the Court on anuar% (, *+5(.

<nder the first assi"ned error, the appellant contends that the crime hecommitted is not murder but a political offense $hich "ives rise to the2uestion as to $hether the same falls under the Anti-1ubversion Act or under Articles *)6 and *) of the Revised Penal Code. &he appellant admits thathe $as a member of the NPA then operatin" in the Ca"a%an area $ith =a0aniel as their leader. 9e asserts that the NPA is the militar% arm of theCommunist Part% of the Philippines. &here is no 2uestion li:e$ise that the:illin" of Apolonio Ra"ual b% the appellant and his companions $ho $erealso members of the NPA upon orders of =a 0aniel $as politicall% motivated.&he% suspected Ra"ual as an informer for the PC. n fact, after he $as:illed, the% left a letter and a dra$in" on the bod% of Ra"ual as a $arnin" toothers not to follo$ his e3ample. *

n the case of (eople *s. !garin, $hich $as a prosecution for murder, li:e

the present case, $here the accused 9u: member $i th his companions:illed the victim because he $as a PC informer, this Court held that thecrime committed is simple rebellion and not murder, as follo$s4

&he offense perpetrated b% appellant is murder, 2ualifiedb% abuse of superior stren"th. Considerin", ho$ever, thefact that the :illin" $as committed as a means to or in thefurtherance of the subversive ends of the 9u: balahaps9<=1/ because the d appellant and his companions,



Commander Manain" and Commander ida suspectedthe deceased to have acted as a sp% and had informedthe B'& and overnment a"encies re"ardin" thepresence of the 9u:s in that re"ion, $e find the dFederico A"arin alias Commander #1mith# "uilt% of thecrime of simple rebellion onl% (eople *s. ernande& et

al ., ++ Phil. *K ( 'ff. a!. *(Q >7K 1ecs. 6 and ,Rule **7K (eople *s. Melecio !%uino et al ., *>5 Phil 5*6K? 'ff. a! *Q +* 5>/@# (eople *s. !garin, *>+ Phil. 6)>,6)7Q#

&he Court, therefore, sustains the contention of the appellant that the crimehe committed is not murder but the crime of rebellion punishable under Articles *)6 and *) of the Revised Penal Code.

&he Court does not a"ree, ho$ever, $ith the alle"ation of the appellant thathe could be held liable onl% for bein" a member in the NPA punishable under the Anti-1ubversion Act. More than bein" a member of the NPA, $hich is asubversive or"ani!ation, the appellant too: up arms a"ainst the "overnmentb% committin" murder, as in this case, $hich thus holds him liable for the"raver offense of rebellion.

Nor can the ar"ument of the appellant that he should be held liable as anaccomplice be sustained. &he records sho$ $ithout doubt that to"ether $ithhis companions, the% :illed the victim, the appellant bein" amon" those $hoshot him and thereafter the% placed the letter and dra$in" on top of the bod%of the deceased as a $arnin" a"ainst others. 9is participation in thecommission of the offense is obviousl% that of a principal and not that of amere accomplice.

<nder the fourth assi"ned error, the appellant claims that he should becredited the miti"atin" circumstance of voluntar% surrender,. Evidence hasbeen adduced b% the appellant that after several months of hidin" after the:illin", he voluntaril% surrendered to t. ee Barnes. 6

&he elements of this miti"atin" circumstance.

a/ &he offender had not actuall% been arrestedK

b/ &hat the offender surrendered himself to a person inauthorit% or the latter@s a"entK and

c/ &he surrendered $as voluntar%. 7

All the above elements are present in the case. &he appellant should thus be

credited this miti"atin" circumstance.

D9EREF'RE, the 8ud"ment appealed from is hereb% modified b% convictin"the accused-appellant of the crime of rebellion punishable under Article *)of the Revised Penal Code and not of murder. Considerin" that thecommission of the offense $as attended b% the miti"atin" circumstance ofvoluntar% surrendered, and appl%in" the ndeterminate 1entence a$,appellant is hereb% imposed an indeterminate penalt% of imprisonment of&$o (/ Jears and Four 6/ Months of prision correccional as minimum to 1i37/ Jears and 'ne */ 0a% of prision ma"or as ma3imum to pa% a fine ofP*>,>>>.>> and to indemnif% the heirs of the deceased Apolonio Ra"ual in

the amount of P)>,>>>.>>. As the accused-appellant is a detention prisonerin the Ne$ Bilibid Prisons and he appears to have been under detention fora period be%ond the period of the penalt% herein-above imposed on him, heis hereb% ordered Released immediatel% from detention unless he is bein"held for some other char"es. &his 0ecision is immediatel% e3ecutor%.

1' 'R0ERE0.

,eehan0ee C.J. 1ar*asa Cru& and Gri/o !%uino JJ. concur.

Foot$ote(

* E3hibits A O B.

( E3hibit C.

) Presidential Proclamation No. *>5* *+?(QK People vs.Ferrer, )5 1CRA )5(, 6>.



6 &1N, Februar% *5, *+?6, p. 7K Februar% (>, *+?6, pp. -7K E3hibits A O B.

People vs. A"arin, *>+ Phil. 6)>K see also People vs. A2uino and Cortes, *>5 Phil. 5*6.

7 &1N., Februar% (>, *+?6.

? People vs. 9anasan, (+ 1CRA )6.


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 17 M#rc5 *, 19//

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISL"N)S, plaintiff-appellee,vs.GR"CI"NO L. C"RER", ET "L., defendants-appellants.

3icente Sotto for appellants. !cting !ttorne"-General ,uason for appelle.

M"LCOLM, J.:

No more serious violation of the criminal la$ of these sland and nor more$anton defiance of the la$ b% the ver% men $hose s$orn dut% it $as toenforce the la$, has ever been brou"ht before this court than is no$presented for consideration in this case. &o aven"e a fancied $ron",member of the Philippine Constabular% murdered si3 member of the police

force of the Cit% of Manila, amon" them the respected Captain Dilliam E.Dichman, assistant chief of police, and t$o private citi!ens, and "ravel%$ounded three other civilians.

&o the tas: of revie$in" the facts, of preparin" an opinion on the pertinentissues, and of renderin" 8ud"ement, if no reversible error be found,re"ardin" the appropriate penalt%, $e no propose to address ourselves.

ST"TEMENT OF THE C"SE "N) OF THE F"CTS

'n 0ecember *), *+(>, policemen of the cit% of Manila arrested a $oman$ho $as a member of the household of a Constabular% soldier stationed at

the 1anta ucia Barrac:s in this cit%. &he arrest of the $oman $asconsidered b% some of the Constabular% soldiers at 1anta ucia Barrac:s asan outra"e committed b% the policemen, and it instantl% "ave rise to frictionbet$een members of the Manila police department and members of thePhilippine Constabular%.

&he ne3t da%, 0ecember *6, at about sunset, a policeman named ArtemioMo8ica, posted on Calle Real, in the 0istrict of ntramuros, cit% of Manila, hadan encounter $ith various Constabular% soldiers $hich resulted in theshootin" of private Macasina" of the Constabular%. Private Macasina" $asseriousl%, and as after$ards appeared, mortall% $ounded.

&he encounter bet$een policeman Mo8ica and other companions of the

Manila force and private Macasina" and other companions of theConstabular%, $ith its "rave conse2uences for the Constabular% soldier,en"endered a deep feelin" of resentment on the part of the soldiers at 1antaucia Barrac:s. &his resentment $as soon converted into a desire forreven"e a"ainst the police force of the cit% of Manila. &he officers of theConstabular% appear to have been a$are of the state of e3citement amon"the soldiers at 1anta ucia Barrac:s because almost immediatel% after theshootin" of private Macasina", Captain Pa"e, the commandin" officer of thebarrac:s, increased the number of "uards, and confined all the soldiers inthe barrac:s.



0urin" the afternoon of the ne3t da%, 0ecember *, *+(>, a rumor spreadamon" the soldiers in 1an ucia Barrac:s to the effect that policeman Mo8ica$as allo$ed to continue on dut% on the streets of ntramuros and that privateMacasina" had died as a conse2uence of the shot he received the ni"htbefore. &his rumor contributed in no small de"ree in precipitatin" amovement for reprisal b% the Constabular% soldiers a"ainst the policeman.

At about ? o@cloc: in the evenin" of the same da%, 0ecember *, *+(>,corporal n"les of the Fourth Compan% approached private Nicolas &orio$ho $as then the man in char"e of 2uarters, and as:ed him to let then theman in char"e of 2uarters of the Fourth Compan%. Private &orio $as easil%persuaded to permit private Francisco arcia of the 1econd Compan% tosa$ out the $indo$ bars of the 2uarters in his char"e, and to allo$ soldiersto escape throu"h the $indo$ $ith rifles and ammunition under thecommand of their ser"eants and corporals. Dhen outside of the 2uarters,these soldiers divided into "roups for attac: upon the cit% police force.

'n platoon of Constabular% soldiers apparentl% numberin" about ten ort$elve, on Calle Real, ntramuros, fired in the direction of the intersection ofCalles Real and Cabildo $here an American policeman named 0ris:ill $as

stationed, and $as tal:in" $ith a friend named acumin, a field cler: in the<nited 1tates Arm%. &hese t$o men $ere shot and died soon after$ards. &othe credit of policeman 0ris:ill be it said, that althou"h a d%in" conditionsand in the face of over$helmin" odds, he valiantl% returned the fire $ith hisrevolver. acumin $as :illed not$ithstandin" that in response to thecommand of the Constabular%, #9ands upV.# he elevated both arms.

A street car happened to stop at this time at the corner of Calles Real andCabildo. Dithout considerin" that the passen"ers in the car $ere innocentpassersb%, the Constabular% s2uad fired a volle% into the car, :illin" instantl%the passen"er named ictor &orres and "ravel% $oundin" three other civilianpassen"ers, re"orio Cailles, icente Antonio, and Mariano Cortes. Fatherose &ahon, a priest of the Cathedral of Manila, proved himself a hero on

this occasion for, a"ainst the command of the Constabular%, he persisted inpersuadin" them to cease firin" and advanced in order the he mi"htadminister spiritual aid to $ho had been $ounded.

&he firin" on Calle Real did not end at that time. 1ome minutes later,Captain Dilliam E. Dichman, assistant chief of police of the cit% of Manila,ridin" in a motorc%cle driven b% policeman 1aplala, arrived at the corner ofCalles Real and Ma"allanes in ntramuros, and a volle% of shots b%Constabular% soldiers resulted in the instantaneous death of CaptainDichman and the death shortl% after$ards of patrolman 1aplala.

About the same time, a police patrol came from the Meisic police station.Dhen it $as on Calle Real near Cabildo, in ntramuros, it $as f ired upon b%Constabular% soldiers $ho had stationed themselves in the court%ard of the1an A"ustin Church. &his attac: resulted in the death of patrolmen &ro"ueand 1i3on.

Another platoon of the Constabular%, bet$een thirt% and fort% in number,

had, in the meantime, arran"ed themselves in a firin" line on the 1un:enardens on the east side of Calle eneral una opposite the A2uarium.From this advanta"eous position the Constabular% fired upon the motorc%cleoccupied b% ser"eant Armada and "iven b% policeman Policarpio $ho $ithcompanions $ere passin" alon" Calle eneral una in front of the A2uarium"oin" in the direction of Calle Real, ntramuros. As a result of the shootin",the driver of the motorc%cle, policeman Policarpio, $as mortall% $ounded.&his same platoon of Constabular% soldiers fired several volle%sindiscriminatel% into the uneta police station, and the office of the secretservice of the cit% of Manila across Calles eneral una and Padre Bur"os,but fortunatel% no one $as in8ured.

eneral Rafael Crame, Chief of the Constabular%, and Captain Pa"e,

commandin" officer of the 1anta ucia Barrac:s, rounded up some of thesoldiers one after another returned to the Barrac:s $here the% $eredisarmed. No list of the names of these soldiers $as, ho$ever, made.

n the mornin" of the ne3t da%, 0ecember *7, *+(>, Colonel ucien R.1$eet of the Constabular% in compliance $ith order from eneral Crame,and assisted b% other Constabular% officers and later b% the fiscals of the cit%of Manila, commenced an investi"ation of the events of the ni"ht before. 9efirst ordered that all the soldiers in 1anta ucia Barrac:s, at that timenumberin" some one hundred and ei"ht%, be assembled on the parade"round, and $hen this $as done, the soldiers $ere separated into theirrespective companies. &hen Colonel 1$eet, spea:in" En"lish, $ithassistance of Captain 1ilvino allardo, $ho interpreted his remar:s into

&a"alo", made t$o brief statements. &he f irst $as, in effect4 #&hose of %ou$ho for one reason or another left the Barrac:s last ni"ht, ma% stepfor$ard.# Respondin" to this order, nearl% one hundred moved to the front.&hereupon, Colonel 1$eet said to these4 #For the "ood of the bod% to $hich%ou belon", of %our companions, and of %ourselves, those $ho participatedin the riot last ni"ht ma% ta:e another step for$ard.# 1event%-three soldiersthen advance a step. &he names of four other $ho too: part but $ho $erenot present $ere ta:en do$n b% Captain allardo.



Dhat occurred on the occasion above described can best be told in thee3act lan"ua"e of Colonel 1$eet4

After conferrin" or spea:in" amon" themselves, for probabl% t$ominutes, inferred or observed from their attitude that the% $ere$aitin" for a call to order. Accordin"l%, called them to order andsome ei"ht-five too: one step for$ard. After that called them to

attentionK advised them that for the "ood of themselves and theircompanions $ho did not participate in the shootin" of the ni"htbefore, for the "ood of the bod% and also of all parties interested,those $ho too: part in the shootin" of the ni"ht before should ta:eanother step for$ard. spo:e so rapidl% that it is impossible for meto repeat e3actl% $hat told them that mornin". spo:e them thatmornin" approvin" the decision of those of them $ho too: one stepfor$ard. believe that some sevent%-t$o ?(/ too: one step for$ardas admittin" that the% too: part in the shootin" on the ni"ht before. then as:ed if the% brou"ht $ith the, ammunition or arms notbelon"in" to them. &he% ans$ered *i*a *oce that each one of themcarried their o$n arms and ammunition. as:ed them if there $asan% one $ho $as $ith them the ni"ht before but $ho $as not

present that mornin"K $hereupon, one or t$o soldiers mentionedthe names of some $ho $ere not then present. &hat is ho$ thetotal number of those $ho left and $ho $ere not in the Barrac:sreached sevent%-seven ??/.

&he statements of the sevent%-seven soldiers $ere ta:en in $ritin" durin"the afternoon of the same da%, 0ecember *7. &he 2uestionnaire prepared b%the fiscal of the Cit% of Manila $as the same for each soldier, and $as filledout either in En"lish or 1panish. &he 2uestions and ans$ers $ere, ho$ever,$hen re2uested b% the soldiers, translated into their dialects Each statement$as si"ned b% the soldier ma:in" it in the presence of either t$o or three$itnesses.

Althou"h the ans$ers to the 2uestions contained in these statements var% inphraseolo"%, in substance the% are the same. 'ne of them, the first innumerical order, that of ser"eant raciano . Cabrera, ta:en in 1panish andinterpreted into &a"alo", ma% be selected as t%pical of the rest, and is hereliterall% transcribed4

*. ive %our name, a"e, status, occupation, and residence. Iraciano . Cabrera, (6 %ears old, sin"le, ser"eant of the firstcompan% of the eneral 1ervice, of the Constabular%, residin" in1anta ucia Barrac:s.

(. &o $hat compan% of the Philippine Constabular% do %ou belon"UI First compan%, eneral 1ervice of the Constabular%.

). Dhere $ere %ou "arrisoned %esterda% afternoon, 0ecember *,*+(>U I n the 1anta ucia Barrac:s.

6. 0id %ou leave the barrac:s at about ? o@cloc: %esterda% evenin"UI Jes, sir.

. For $hat reason, and $here did %ou "oU I De $ent in search of the policemen and secret service men of Manila. t has beensometime no$ since $e have been havin" standin" "rud"e a"ainstthe police of Manila. &he $ife of one of our comrades $as firstarrested b% the policemen and then abused b% the sameK and notcontent $ith havin" abused her, the% "ave this $oman to an AmericanK after this incident, the% arrested t$o soldiers of theConstabular%, falsel% accusin" them of :eepin" $omen of badreputationK after this incident, came the shootin" of Macasina", ashootin" not 8ustified, because $e have come to :no$ thatMacasina" did nothin" and the policemen could have arrested himif the% desired. Moreover, the rumor spread amon" us that thepolice department of Manila had "iven orders to the policemen tofire upon an% constabular% soldier the% found in the streets, and $ebelieve that the rumor $as not $ithout foundation since $e noticedthat after the Macasina" affair, the policemen of Manila, contrar% tothe usual practice, $ere armed $ith carbines or shot-"uns. For thisreason $e believed that if $e did not put an end to these abuses ofthe policemen and secret service men, the% $ould continueabusin" the Constabular%. And as an act of ven"eance $e did $hat$e had done last ni"ht.

7. 9o$ did %ou come to 8oin %our companions $ho rioted last ni"htUI sa$ that almost all the soldiers $ere 8umpin" throu"h the$indo$ and $as to be left alon" in the barrac:s and so follo$ed.

?. Dho as:ed %ou to 8oin itU I Nobod%.

5. 0o %ou :no$ private Crispin Macasina", the one $ho $as shotb% the Manila police the ni"ht before last on Calle RealU I Jes, sir, :no$ him because he $as our comrade.



+. Dere %ou offended at the a""ression made on the person of saidsoldierU I ndeed, %es, not onl% $as offended, but m%companions also $ere.

*>. 1tate ho$ man% shots %ou fired, if an%, durin" the riot last ni"ht.I cannot tell precisel% the number of shots fired because $assome$hat obfuscatedK all can assure %ou is that fired more than

once.

**. 0o %ou :no$ if %ou hit an% policemen or an% other personU I f so, state $hether the victim $as a policemen or an% civilian.

*(. 1tate the streets of the cit% $here %ou fired shots. I cannot"ive an e3act account of the streets $here fired m% "un. had fullpossession of m% faculties until reached Calle ictoriaKafter$ards , became a$are that $as bathed $ith perspirationonl% upon reachin" the barrac:s.

*). Dhat arms $ere %ou carr%in" and ho$ much ammunition or

ho$ man% cartrid"es did %ou useU I carried a carbineK cannottell precisel% the number of cartrid"es usedK ho$ever, placed inm% poc:et the t$ent% cartrid"es belon"in" to me and must havelost some on the $a%.

*6. 9o$ did %ou mana"e to leave the barrac:sU I B% the, $indo$of the 2uarters of the Fourth Compan%, throu"h the "ratin" $hich found cut off.

*. Are %ou above statements made b% %ou, voluntaril% freel%, andspontaneousl% "ivenU I Jes, sir.

*7. 0o %ou s$ear to said statements althou"h no promise ofimmunit% is made to %ouU I Jes, sirK confirm them, bein" true.

1"d./ . . CABRERA

Ditnesses4

1"d./ 1. AAR0'A<R' C. MARG<E.

&he defendants $ere char"ed in one information filed in the Court of Firstnstance of the cit% of Manila $ith the crime of sedition, and in anotherinformation filed in the same court, $ith the crimes of murder and seriousph%sical in8uries. &he t$o cases $ere tried separatel% before different 8ud"esof first instance. n the sedition case, $hich came on for trial f irst, all of theaccused, $ith the e3ception of ei"ht, namel%, Francisco n"les, uanNoromor, P. E. allado, 0ionisio erdadero, Francisco arcia, Beni"no

&a"avilla, Feli3 amsin" and Paciano CaLa pleaded "uilt%, but later, after thefirst $itness for the prosecution had testified, the accused $ho had pleaded"uilt% $ere permitted, $ith the consent of the court, to substitute therefor theplea of not "uilt%. n the murder case, all entered a plea of not "uilt%. 'npetition of the defense, t$o assessors $ere chosen to sit $ith the 8ud"e.

&he prosecution presented, in the ma:in" of its case, the sevent%-sevenconfession of the defendants introduced in evidence as E3hibits C to C-?7,inclusive, and all $ere identified b% the respective constabular% officers,interpreters, and t%pists $ho intervened in ta:in" them. &he prosecutionfurther relied on oral testimon%, includin" e%e$itness to the homicides.

&he attorne%s for the accused presented three defenses. &he first defense

$as that of 8eopard%K the second $as based on the contention that the$ritten statements E3hibits C to C->?7 $ere not freel% and voluntaril% madeb% the defendantsK and the third defense, in favor of the defendants icenteCasimiro, uan Noromor, 1alvador re"orio, Paciano CaLa, uan Abar2ue!,Mariano arcia, Feli3 iron, Bonifacio Eu"enio, Patricio Bello, BaldomeroRodri"ue!, Roberto Palaba%, Ro2ue Ebol, ldefonso de la Cru!, Ciprianoi!ardo, Francisco arcia, enaro Ela%da, 9ilario 9ibalar, Primitivo E.allado, Ma3imo Perlas, and Beni"no &a"avilla, $as to the effect that the%not ta:e part in the riot. &he court overruled the special defenses and foundthat the "uilt of the accused had been proved be%ond a reasonable doubt.&hereupon, the court rendered 8ud"ement findin" all of the defendants "uilt%of the crimes char"ed in the information and sentenced the three ser"eantsraciano Cabrera, Pascual Ma"no, And Bonifacio Eu"enio, and the ei"ht

corporals, E. E. A"bulos, Francisco n"les, Clemente Mani"de", 9ilario9ibalar, uan Abar2ues, Pecro . Mateo, uan Re"alado and enaroEla%da, to cadena perpetua life imprisonment/, and each of the remainin"defendants to seventeen %ears, four months and one da% of cadenatemporal , all $ith the accessor% penalties provided b% the Penal Code andall to indemnif% 8ointl% and severall% the heirs of each deceased in the sum of P>>, and to pa% a proportional part of the costs.

For the statement of the cases and the facts $hich has 8ust been made, $eare indebted in lar"e measure to the conspicuousl% fair and thou"htfuldecisions of the 9on. Carlos mperial $ho presided in the murder case, and



of the 9on. eor"e R. 9arve% $ho presided in the sedition case. Asstipulated b% the Attorne%-eneral and counsel for the defendants, the proofis substantiall% the same in both cases.

n all materials respects, $e a"ree $ith the findin"s of fact as made b% thetrial court in this case. &he rule is a"ain applied that the 1upreme Court $illnot interfere $ith the 8ud"ement of the trial court in passin" upon the

credibilit% of the opposin" $itnesses, unless there appears in the recordsome fact or circumstances of $ei"ht and influence $hich as beenoverloo:ed or si"nificance of $hich has been, interpreted. <. 1. vs. Ambrosio and Falsario *+*>Q, *? Phil., (+K <. 1. Reme"io *+*5Q, )? Phil.,++./ n the record of the case at bar, no such fact or circumstance appears.

OPINION

An assi"nment of si3 errors is made b% the counsel for the defendants andappellants. &$o of the assi"nments of error merit l ittle or no consideration. Assi"nments of error and 7 findin" their counterpart in assi"nment of error No. ( in the sedition case/, in $hich it is attempted to establish that icenteCasimiro, uan Noromor, 1alvador re"orio, Paciano CaLa, uan Abar2ue!,Mariano arcia, Feli3 iron, Bonifacio Eu"enio, Patricio Bello, BaldomeroRodri"ue!, Roberto Palaba%, Ro2ue Ebol, ldefonso dela Cru!, Ciprianoi!ardo, Primitivo E. allado, Ma3imo Perlas and Beni"no &a"avilla did notleave the 1anta ucia Barrac:s on the ni"ht of the tra"ed%, is predicated onthe special defense raised in the lo$er court for these defendants and $hich$as found untenable b% the trial court. An% further discussion of this 2uestionfalls more appropriatel% under our consideration of assi"nment of error No.), relatin" to the conspirac% bet$een the accused.

Assi"nment error No. 6 relatin" to the 8ud"e decidin" the case $ithout ta:in"into consideration the transcript of the steno"raphic notes in the case forsedition does not constitute reversible error. Counsel for the defendants isthe first to admit b% stipulation that the facts in the t$o case are substantiall%the same.

&he three pertinent issues in this case relate to4 */ &he admission ofE3hibits C to C-?7 of the prosecution assi"nment error No. (, murder caseKassi"nment of error No. *, sedition case/K (/ the conspirac% bet$een theaccused assi"nment of error No. ), murder caseK assi"nment of error No. 6,sedition case/K and )/ the defense of double 8eopard% assi"nment of errorNo. *, murder case/.

1. THE ")MISSION OF EHIITS C TO C-76

Appellants claim that fraud and decit mar:ed the preparation of the sevent%-seven confession. t is alle"ed that some of the defendants si"ned theconfessions under the impression that those $ho had ta:en part in the affra%$ould be transferred to Mindanao, and that althou"h the% did not in fact soparticipate, affirmed that the% did because of a desire to leave ManilaK thatothers stepped for$ard #for the "ood of the service#K $hile still other simpl%didn@t understand $hat the% $ere doin", for the remar:s of Colonel 1$eet

$ere made in En"lish and onl% translated into &a"alo", and theirdeclarations $ere sometimes ta:en in a lan"ua"e $hich $as unintelli"ible tothem. Counsel evidence of E3hibits C to C-?7, and the Attorne%-eneral is$ron" in statin" other$ise.

1ection 6 of Act No. 7*+ entitled #An Act to promote "ood order anddiscipline in the Philippines Constabular%# and readin"4 #No confession ofan% person char"ed $ith crime shall be received as evidence a"ainst him b%an% court of 8ustice unless it be first sho$n to the satisfaction of the courtthat it $as freel% and voluntaril% made and not the result of violence,intimidation, threat, menace, or of promises or offers of re$ard or lenienc%,#$as repealed b% the first Administrative Code. But the same rule of 8urisprudence continues $ithout the la$. As has been repeatedl% announced

b% this and other courts, #the true test of admissibilit% is that the confessionis made freel%, voluntaril%, and $ithout compulsion or inducement of an%sort.# f the confession is freel% and voluntaril% made, it constitutes one of themost effectual proofs in the la$ a"ainst the part% ma:in" it. Dilson vs. <. 1.*5+Q, *7( <. 1., 7*)./ &he burden of proof that the confession $as notvoluntaril% made or $as obtained b% undue pressure is on the accused. <.1. vs. ara *+(*Q, 6( Phil., )>5./

Dhat actuall% occurred $hen the confessions $ere prepared is clearl%e3plained in the record. &he source of the rumor that the defendants $ouldbe transferred to Mindanao if the% si"ned the confessions, is not established.'n the contrar% it is established that before the declarations $ere ta:en,ieutenant atuslao in response to a 2uer% had sho$n the improbabilit% of

such a transfer. Dith Militar% $here the dialect is &a"alo", all of thedefendants must have understood the substantial part of Colonel 1$eet@sremar:s. Dhat is more important, there could be no misunderstandin" as tothe contents of the confessions as $ritten do$n. n open court, si3t%-nine ofthe defendants reiterated their "uilt. &he officers $ho assisted in theinvesti"ation $ere of the same service as the defendants and $ouldnaturall% not be inclined to pre8udice the ri"hts of their o$n men.

must also be remembered that each and ever% one of the defendants $asa member of the nsular police force. Because of the ver% nature of theirduties and because of their practical e3perience, these Constabular%



soldiers must have been a$are of the penalties meted out for criminaloffenses. Ever% man on such a momentous occasion $ould be more carefulof his actions than ordinaril% and $hatever of credulit% there is in him, $ouldfor the moment be laid aside. 'ver and above all desire for a more e3citin"life, over and above the so-called espiritu de corps is the instinct of self-preservation $hich could not but be full% aroused b% such stirrin" incidentstoo recent to be for"otten as had occurred in this case, and $hich $ould

counsel prudence rather than rashnessK secretiveness rather than "arrulit%.

&hese confessions contain the statements that the% $ere made freel% andvoluntaril% $ithout an% promise of immunit%. &hat such $as the case $ascorroborated b% the attestin" $itnesses $hose credibilit% has not beensuccessfull% impeached.

De rule the trial court did not err in admittin" E3hibits C to C-?7 of theprosecution.

/. THE CONSPIR"C; ET>EEN THE "CCUSE)

&he contention of the appellants is that evidence is lac:in" of an% supposedconnivance bet$een the accused. Counsel emphasi!es that in ans$er to the2uestion in the confession, #Dho as:ed %ou to 8oin in the riotU,# each of theaccused ans$ered, #Nobod%.# &he ar"ument is then advanced that theappellants cannot be held criminall% responsible because of the so-calledps%cholo"% of cro$ds theor%. n other $ords, it is claimed that at the time ofthe commission of the crime the accused $ere mere automatons obe%in"the insistent call of their failure of evidence and the positive evidence,counsel $ould deduce the absence of conspirac% bet$een the accused.

t is a primar% rule that i f t$o or more persons combine to perform a criminalact, each is responsible for all the acts of the others done in furtherance ofthe common desi"nK and #the results is the same if the act is divided into

parts and each person proceeds $ith his part unaided.# <. 1. vs. Ma!a*+>Q, Phil., )67K <. 1. vs. Remi"io *+*5Q, )? Phil., ++K decision of thesupreme court of 1pain of 1eptember (+, *55)K People vs. Mather *5)>Q, 6Dendell, (++./

Conspiracies are "enerall% proved b% a number of indefinite acts, conditions,and circumstances $hich var% accordin" to the purposes to beaccomplished. f it be proved that the defendants pursued b% their acts thesame ob8ect, one performin" one part and another part of the same, so as tocomplete it, $ith a vie$ to the attainment of that same ob8ect, one $ill be 8ustified in the conclusion that the% $ere en"a"ed in a conspirac% to effect

that ob8ect. R. C. ., *>55./ Applied to the facts before is, it isincontestable that all of the defendants $ere imbued $ith the same purpose,$hich $as to aven"e themselves on the police force of the cit% of Manila. Acommon feelin" of resentment animated all. A common plan evolved fromtheir militar% trainin" $as follo$ed.

&he effort to lead the court into the realm of ps%cholo"% and metaph%sics is

unavailin" in the face of actualities. &he e3istence of a 8oint assent ma% bereasonabl% inferred from the facts proved. Not alone are the men $ho firedthe fatal shots responsible, not alone are the men $ho admit firin" theircarbines responsible, but all, havin" united to further a common desi"n ofhate and ven"eance, are responsible for the le"al conse2uences therefor.

De rule that the trial court did not err in declarin" that there $as aconspirac% bet$een the accused.

. THE )EFENSE OF )OULE EOP"R);

&he constitutional inhibition in the Philippine Bill of Ri"hts is #that no person

for same offense shall t$ice be put in 8eopard% of punishment.,# 1ome$hatin application thereof, the code of Criminal Procedure provides that #Dhen adefendant shall have been convicted or ac2uitted or once placed in 8eopard%upon an information or complaint, the conviction, ac2uittal or 8eopard% shallbe a bar to another information or indictment for the offense char"ed, or foran attempt to commit the same, or for a frustration thereof, or for an% offensenecessaril% therein included of $hich he mi"ht been convicted under suchcomplaint or information.# 1ec. (7./ &he "uarant% in Philippine or"anic andstatutor% la$ relatin" to double 8eopard% has received controllin"interpretation both b% the 1upreme Court of the Philippines and the 1upremeCourt of the <nited 1tates.

&he prohibition is a"ainst a second 8eopard% for the same offense. &o entitle

a defendant to plead successfull% former 8eopard%, the offense char"e in thet$o prosecutions must be the same in la$ and in fact. &he test is not$hether the defendant has alread% been tried for the same act, but $hetherhe has been put in 8eopard% for the same offense. &he same acts ma%violate t$o or more provisions of the criminal la$. Dhen the% do, aprosecution under one $ill not bar a prosecution under another.

n corroboration and in e3emplification of the rules pertainin" to the sub8ectof double 8eopard%, $e have onl% to turn to leadin" decisions of the <nited1tates 1upreme Court on Philippine appeals. n Flemister *s. <nited 1tates*+>?Q, (>? <. 1., )?(/,* it $as held that treatin" as t$o different offenses



elo2uent pleas on the hand for merc% and on the other for conviction, not theapplication of various le"al authorities, not even the voluminous transcript ofthe oral testimon%, either separatel% or all combined, constitute the soleelements $hich irresistibl% move us to$ard a stern 8ud"ment, but the mostelo2uent pleaders for 8ustice top the dead and safet% for the livin" come fromthe silent photo"raphs of the dead and safet% for the livin" come from thesilent photo"raphs of the dead introduced in evidence under the prosaic

denomination of E3hibits , =, , M, N, , and '. &he blood% spot on theescutcheon of an other$ise "reat or"ani!ation must be removed.

t is a disa"reeable dut%, therefore, $hich the members of this court arecalled upon to perform. But that it is disa"reeable should not of courses$erve us from its performance. Dere cases of this nature allo$ed to pass$ithout condemnation, the lives of man:ind $ould constantl% be imperilledand there $ould be no securit% in the 1tate, for its peace and tran2uilit%$ould be upset and the authorit% of the overnment $ould be put at nau"htb% the ver% a"ents of la$ and order $ho have s$orn to protect it. &he courts$ere instituted precisel% to function in times of peril to the 1tate, to protectthe ri"hts of the people, to mete out punishment to those $ho have renderedit unsafe for individuals to live at peace $ith their fello$men.

Dith the determination of the trial court as to the circumstances $hich fi3 thede"ree of the penalt%, $e are, "enerall% spea:in", in accord. &hecircumstance of evident premeditation $as found to e3ist, thus 2ualif%in" thecrime as that of murder. All the actions of the accused demonstrate that their purpose $as to :ill an% members of the cit% police $hom the% should meet. A considerable number of the accused in their confessions "ave as thereason for the affra% the desire to reven"e themselves on the cit% police.'ne of them $hile marchin" throu"h the streets $as heard to e3claim #&he%:illed one of usK $e $ill :il l ten policemen/ for one.# Another $as heard toe3claim, #Al cuartelV# and this $as repeated b% his companions, #Al cuartelV#

&he trial 8ud"e found present as circumstances $hich a""ravate criminal

liabilit%, that the crime $as committed in the ni"httime and that advanta"e$as ta:en of superior stren"th, but, resolvin" the doubt in favor of theaccused, $as unable to find that the act $as committed $i th treacher%. Deconcur $ith 9is 9onor, ud"e mperial. Advanta"e $as ta:en of the shadesof ni"ht in order to better serve the unla$ful purpose. 1event%-seven armedConstabular% soldiers in militar% formation $ere vastl% superior in numberand e2uipment to the policemen $hom the% happened to meet.

&he trial 8ud"e found present no circumstance $hich $ould miti"ate thecriminal liabilit% of the ser"eants and corporals, but did estimate as a

miti"atin" circumstance, in the cases of the privates, that provided b% article** of the Penal Code, as amended, relatin" to the de"ree of instruction andeducation of the offenders. Certain members of the Court entertain anidentical opinion, $hile other members ta:e a contrar% vie$. 9o$ever, theresult $ill be the same, since there is not a unanimous vote $ith re"ard tothe propriet% of the imposition of the death penalt% on the private soldiers.

Both the trial 8ud"e in the sedition case and the trial 8ud"e in the murder casefound a difference bet$een the situation of the non-commissioned officersand of the common soldiers. &he opinion $as e3pressed b% the t$o 8ud"esthat the ser"eants and corporals amon" the defendants deserved a lar"ermeasure e3perience of the non-commissioned officers and their moreresponsible positions, $e feel that this is a proper appreciation of the facts.

&he trial 8ud"e found the crimes as fallin" $ithin the provisions of article 5+of the Penal Code. Certain members of the court a"ree. 'ther membersdisa"ree and $ould ma:e use of the provisions of articles 5? and 55 of theCode. At least such doubt as e3ists should be resolved in favor of theaccused, and this means that, in conformit% $ith the provisions of article 5?,the% are "uilt% of the crimes of multiple murder $ith "rave in8uries. &he

penalt% is then death for the eleven ser"eants and corporals, and cadena perpetua, imprisonment for a ma3imum period of fort% %ears, for the si3t%-si3private soldiers. See <. 1. vs. Balaba *+*?Q, )? Phil., (7>./

&he result is to modif% the 8ud"ement appealed from b% sentencin" each ofthe Constabular% soldiers Patricio Rubio, Mariano Ara"on, 1ilvino A%an"co,uillermo nis, ulian Anda%a, Crispin Mesaluche, Prudencio &asis, 1ilvinoBacani, 1alvador re"orio, uan Noromor, Petronilo Antonio, Patricio Bello,Nemesio 0ecena, Baldomero Rodri2ue!, P. E. allado, Pedro a%ola, Feli3Cenon iron/, 0ionisio erdadero, Francisco arcia, 0omin"o Peroche,Florentino acob, oren!o &umboc, Paciano CaLa, 0omin"o Canape, Arcadio 1an Pedro, 0aniel Coralde, icente Casimiro, Casiano uinto,Nemesio amus, uis Bor8a, 1everino Elefane, icente &abien, ictor Atuel,

enancio Mira, Beni"no &a"avilla, Masa$a%, Marcos Mar2ue!, Guinto0esierto, &eofilo lana, Feli3 amsin", ictorino Merto, &imoteo 'permaria,Bernabe 1ison, Eusebio Cerrudo, ulia Acantilado, Ma3imo Perlas, "nacioechoncito, Pascual 0ionio, Marcial Pelicia, Rafael Nafrada, Cornelioli!a"a, acarias Baile, Roberto Palaba%, Ro2ue Ebol, Benito arcia,Cipriano i!ardo, ldefonso de la Cru!, uan Miranda, 9onorio Bautista,Crisanto 1al"o, Francisco u!ano, Marcelino 1ilos, raciano apata,Feli!ardo Favinal, Nicanor Perlas, and aspar Andrada, to suffer cadenaperpetua, computed as imprisonment for fort% %ears, and b% sentencin"each of the ser"eants and corporals raciano . Cabrera, Pascual Ma"no,Bonifacio Eu"enio, E. E. A"bulos, Francisco n"les, Clemente Mani"de",



uan Abar2ue!, Pedro . Mateo, uan Re"alado, 9ilario, and enaroEla%da, to suffer the death penalt% as provided b% la$ at Bilibid Prison, atsuch time as shall be fi3ed b% the ud"e of First nstance sittin" in 1ala No.6 in the cit% of Manila, and as thus modified, 8ud"ment is affirmed $ith aproportional part of the costs of this instance a"ainst each appellant. 1oordered.

!raullo C.J. Johnson Street !*ance/a 3illamor Ostrand Johns andRomualde& JJ. concur.

Foot$ote(

*** Phil., 5>).

(6* Phil., +7*.


Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-6*/6 NoeBber , 19/

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISL"N)S, plaintiff-appellee,vs.IGN"CIO N"ONG, defendant-appellant.

,he appellant in his o+n behalf.

!ttorne"-General Jaranilla for appellee.

STREET, J.:

&his appeal has been brou"ht to reverse a 8ud"ment of the Court ofFirst nstance of the Province of Nueva Eci8a, findin" the appellant, "nacioNabon", "uilt% of the offense of sedition under section 5 of Act No. (+(, asamended b% Act No. *7+(, and sentencin" him to pa% a fine of t$o hundred

pesos, $ith subsidiar% imprisonment in case of insolvenc%, and re2uirin" himto pa% the costs.

&he appellant is an attorne% en"a"ed in the practice of la$ atCabanatuan, in the Province of Nueva Eci8aK and shortl% before the incident$ith $hich $e are here concerned, he had been retained to defend one uanFeleo a"ainst a char"e of sedition that had been preferred a"ainst him.Feleo $as in those da%s a reco"ni!ed leader of the communists in NuevaEci8a, and $as related b% marria"e to the appellant. n the latter part ofanuar%, *+)*, one Antonio 0. 'ra, the head of the communists in thePhilippine slands, died in the municipalit% of 1anta Rosa, Nueva Eci8a, anda necrolo"ical service in his memor% $as appointed b% his follo$ers to be

held at 1anta Rosa on the evenin" of anuar% )>. &he fact that said meetin"$as to be held came to the attention of Ma8or 1ilvino allardo, in char"e ofthe Philippine Constabular% in Cabanatuan, and he $as informed that thered fla" $ould be displa%ed in this meetin" as an emblem of thecommunists. Ma8or allardo accordin"l% had an intervie$ $ith the provincialfiscal over the 2uestion $hether the displa% of the fla" should be prevented.&he fiscal "ave an opinion to the effect that the displa% of the red fla" $ouldbe unla$ful, and a cop% of his opinion to this effect $as placed in the handsof Ma8or allardo. As Ma8or allardo left the court-house, he met theappellant Nabon", and :no$in" the relation bet$een the latter and Feleo,the leader of the communists in that province, Ma8or allardo re2uested

Nabon" to interfere and prevent the displa% of the red fla" at the meetin"referred to. At this intervie$ a cop% of the fiscal@s opinion $as e3hibited toNabon" and $as read b% him in the presence of various persons. Afterperusin" the opinion Nabon" said that he did not a"ree $ith the conclusionof the fiscalK and he, therefore, refused to accompan% the Constabular%officers and the deput% provincial fiscal to 1anta Rosa, statin" that, if he$ere to "o there, he $ould tell the communists that no la$ prohibited thedispla% of the red fla" and that he $ould induce them to displa% the same.9e added that, if the communist $ere forbidden to use the fla", adisturbance $ould probabl% result.



&he Constabular% officers, accompanied b% the deput% fiscal illamor,then departed for 1anta Rosa. 'n their $a% the% met uan Feleo. n theintervie$ that follo$ed, Feleo $as sho$n the opinion of the fiscal and he$as re2uested to refrain from displa%in" the red fla" at the meetin" in 1antaRosa. Feleo promised to compl% $ith this re2uest, at least until he shouldhave discussed the matter $ith the communist leaders in Manila.

Althou"h Nabon", as above stated, had refused to accompan% Ma8orallardo and his companions on their trip to 1anta Rosa, he $aited a $hileat Cabanatuan and after$ards left for 1anta Rosa, arrivin" in time toparticipate in the meetin". At this meetin" the red fla" $as displa%ed,contrar% to the promise that Feleo had made to Ma8or allardoK and uponlearnin" of this fact, Ma8or allardo, accompanied b% several Constabular%officers and soldiers, repaired to the place in 1anta Rosa $here the meetin"$as bein" held. <pon arrival the% found Feleo ma:in" a speech, andinasmuch as some of his utterances appeared to be of a seditious nature,Ma8or allardo caused him to be arrested and removed from the place. Atthe same time the red fla" $hich $as bein" displa%ed on the platform $as

removed. Dords spo:en b% Feleo on this occasion became the sub8ect ofprosecution in (eople *s. #eleo, . R. No. )76(5. *

&he arrest and removal of Feleo resulted in disorder amon" thepeople present at the meetin", and Ma8or allardo found it advisable toma:e a short speech e3plainin" $h% Feleo had been arrested. &hen, seein"Nabon" present, Ma8or allardo told him that the disturbance $ould havebeen avoided if he Nabon"/ had follo$ed the su""estion made to him atCabanatuan b% Ma8or allardo. Nabon" replied that the communists hadconsulted him and that he had advised them to displa% the fla" inasmuch asthe act $as not prohibited b% an% la$.

After Feleo had been arrested and ta:en a$a%, the proceedin"s at themeetin" $ere continued, and acinto Manahan spo:e to the cro$d. 9e $asfollo$ed b% "nacio Nabon" $ho delivered a speech in &a"alo", occup%in"some t$ent% minutes of time. n the course of this speech Nabon" critici!edthe members of the Constabular%, usin" $ords substantiall% to the follo$in"effect4

&he% committed a real abuse in sei!in" the fla". &hemembers of the Constabular% are bad because the% shoot eveninnocent $omen, as it happened in &a%u". I n vie$ of this, $eou"ht to be united to suppress that abuse. 'verthro$ the present"overnment and establish our o$n "overnment, the "overnment ofthe poor. <se %our $hip so that there ma% be mar:s on their sides.

Dhile Nabon" $as tal:in" his $ords $ere attentivel% listened to b%deput% fiscal illamor, as $ell as Captain Cacdac and ieutenant Arambulo,all of $hom understood the &a"alo" lan"ua"e. At the same time CaptainCacdac and ieutenant Arambulo too: notes of the substance of this part ofthe speech. Ma8or allardo himself $as also attentive to $hat $as said, andfrom time to time, in the course of the speech, the ma8or as:ed fiscalillamor $hether the lan"ua"e then bein" used $as seditious. An affirmativeans$er to these 2uestions $as not "iven b% the fiscal until that part of thespeech $as reached $hich contained the $ords above 2uoted, and afterthose $ords had been spo:en Nabon" $as arrested.

&he proof in our opinion sho$s be%ond reasonable doubt that thelan"ua"e imputed to the appellant $as used b% himK and this is corroboratedb% the circumstance that the appellant, upon the occasion of a meetin" ofthe Nueva Eci8a Bar Association in connection $ith this char"e a"ainstNabon", admitted havin" advocated in 1anta Rosa the overthro$ of theovernment. 1uch advocac% b% the defendant is confirmed b% the testimon%of Amado Estonilo, a $itness for the defense.

&he testimon% for the defense tends to sho$ that Nabon" $ent to1anta Rosa for the purpose of preventin" a disturbance, and that uponarrival in 1anta Rosa he attempted to prevail upon Feleo not to displa% the

red fla". &he proof for the defense further su""ests that Nabon" is $ellaffected to the overnment and that the lan"ua"e used b% him $as notintended to advocate the overthro$ of the overnment b% force. &he trialcourt seems to have attached little $ei"ht to this line of proof, and $e are ofthe opinion that in this no error $as committed.

&he lan"ua"e used b% the appellant clearl% imported an overthro$ ofthe overnment b% violence, and it should be interpreted in the plain andobvious sense in $hich it $as evidentl% intended to be understood. &he $ord



#overthro$# could not have been intended as referrin" to an ordinar% chan"eb% the e3ercise of the elective franchise. &he use of the $hip, an instrumentdesi"ned to leave mar:s on the sides of adversaries, is inconsistent $ith themild interpretation $hich the appellant $ould have us impute to thelan"ua"e. t $as the purpose of the spea:er, be%ond a doubt, to incite hishearers to the overthro$ of or"ani!ed "overnment b% unla$ful means. &he

$ords used b% the appellant manifestl% tended to induce the people to resistand use violence a"ainst the a"ents of the Constabular% and to insti"ate thepoor to cabal and meet to"ether for unla$ful purposes. &he% also su""estedand incited rebellious conspiracies, thereb% tendin" to stir up the peoplea"ainst the la$ful authorities and to disturb the peace of the communit% andthe order of the overnment, in violation of section 5 of Act No. (+( of thePhilippine Commission, as amended. t is not necessar%, in order to beseditious, that the $ords used should in fact result in a risin" of the peoplea"ainst the constituted authorities. &he la$ is not aimed merel% at actualdisturbance, and its purpose is also to punish utterances $hich ma%endan"er public order. As $as said b% the 1upreme Court of the <nited1tates in itlo$ *s. Ne$ Jor: (75 <. 1., 7(, 77+/, #1uch utterances, b%

their ver% nature, involve dan"er to the public peace and to the securit% ofthe 1tate. &he% threaten breaches of the peace and ultimate revolution. Andthe immediate dan"er is none the less real and substantial, because theeffect of a "iven utterance cannot be accuratel% foreseen.#

&he 2uestion of the seditious character of the lan"ua"e imputed in theinformation to the appellant $as raised b% demurrer to the information, butthe demurrer $as overruled and the defendant $as re2uired to plead. &here$as no error in the action thus ta:en b% the trial court.

t is su""ested in the appellant@s brief that the provisions of our la$

relatin" to sedition are incompatible $ith that portion of section ) of theones a$ $hich declares that no la$ shall be passed abrid"in" thefreedom of speech or of the press, but the appellant@s brief does not containan% ar"ument tendin" to support this su""estion. At an% rate the point is not$ell ta:en. &he acts contemplated in the provisions of la$ relatin" to seditionare not protected b% the constitutional provision, bein" abuses rather thanthe e3ercise of the ri"ht of speech and of the use of the press. t is afundamental principle, lon" established, that the f reedom of speech and ofthe press $hich is secured b% the Constitution does not confer an absoluteri"ht to spea: or publish, $ithout responsibilit%, $hatever one ma% choose,

or unrestricted or unbridled license that "ives immunit% for ever% possibleuse of lan"ua"e and prevents the punishment of those $ho abuse thisfreedom. itlo$ *s. Ne$ Jor:, (75 <. 1., 7(, 777./ la+phil.net

Dith respect to the penalt% appropriate to this case, $e are of theopinion that the trial court erred in not imposin" upon the appellant

imprisonment for a period of si3 months in addition to the fine of P(>>. nreachin" this conclusion $e bear in mind the fact that the appellant is ala$%er b% profession, and b% reason of his intelli"ence and education, as$ell as b% the obli"ation of his office as a la$%er, it $as his dut% to e3ercisehis influence in support of the 1tate. nstead of this he appears to havemade the cause of Feleo and other communistic a"itators his o$n. nparticular, it is proved that the displa% of the red fla" upon the occasionreferred to $as due to his advice. n ta:in" this position and utterin" theseditious $ords $hich he is proved to have used, the appellant violated notonl% the $ritten la$ but his oath of office as an attorne%.

&he act $hich is the sub8ect of this prosecution $as committed prior to

the comin" into effect of the Revised Penal CodeK but the penalt% providedfor this offense in article *6( in relation $ith article *)+ of said Code is"reater than that imposed b% the trial court, and b% this court, under section5 of Act No. (+(. t results that nothin" beneficial to the appellant is revealedin the ne$ Code.

t bein" understood, therefore, that the penalt% of imprisonment for si3months is imposed upon the appellant in addition to the fine, the 8ud"mentappealed from is affirmed. 1o ordered, $ith costs a"ainst the appellant.

!*ance/a C.J. Malcolm 3illamor Ostrand !bad Santos 3ic0ers mperial

and 'utte JJ. concur.

Foot$ote(

* Pa"e ++>, post .



EN "NC

G.R. No. L-896. October /, 196.:

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff - Appellee, (. FE)ERICOGERONIMO #'#( CB%r. OSC"R, ET "L.,Defendants, FE)ERICO

GERONIMO #'#( CB%r. OSC"R, Defendant - Appellant .

) E C I S I O N

RE;ES, . . L., J.:

n an information filed on une (6, *+6 b% the provincial Fiscal in the Courtof First nstance of Camarines 1ur, !ppellant Federico eronimo, to"ether $ith Mariano P. Bal"os alias Ba:al alias &on%, alias &on% Collante alias &aoic,alias Man" Pacio, alias Bonn% Abundio Roma"osa alias 0avid, esus Politaalias Re3, esus ava alias essie alias NM&, alias Balbas, alias Noli, alias

Noli Metan"ere, alias N=0, uan 'compo alias Cmdr. Bundalian, alias&a"le, Rosendo Manuel alias Cmdr. 1endon", alias Rui!, Ernesto 9erreroalias Cmdr. Ed, alias Rene, alias Edd%, 1antia"o Rotas alias Cmdr. essie,Fernando Principe alias Cmdr. Mandin", Alfredo 1a"uni alias odo, alias&err%, alias &erp%, Andres 0iapera alias Maclan", alias Berto, alias &en%,oren!o 1aniel alias Denn%, 1ilvestre 1isno alias &omo, alias Albert,&eodoro Primavera alias Nestor, oren!o Ro3as alias Ar"os, ivencioPineda alias Mar2ue!, Pedro Anino alias Fernande!, Mauro lorera aliasusto, Richard 0oe alias Cmdr. 0ann% and ohn 0oe alias Cmdr. Berion,alias Ma%o, alias Cmdr. Paulito and man% others, $ere char"ed $ith thecomple3 crime of rebellion $ith murders, robberies, and :idnappin"committed as follo$s4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

W&hat on or about Ma% (5, *+67 and for sometime prior and subse2uentthereto continuousl% up to the present time in the province of Camarines 1ur,Philippines and $ithin the 8urisdiction of this 9onorable Court and in other municipalities, cities and provinces and other parts of the countr% $here the%have chosen to carr% out their rebellious activities, the above-namedaccused bein" then ran:in" officers and;or members of, or other$iseaffiliated $ith the Communist Part% of the Philippines CPP/ and the9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a N" Ba%an 9MB/ or other$ise :no$n as the9u:balahaps 9<=1/ the latter bein" the armed force of said CommunistPart% of the Philippines CCP/ havin" come to an a"reement and decide to



commit the crime of Rebellion, and therefore, conspirin" to"ether andconfederatin" amon" themselves $ith all of the thirt%-one accused incriminal case Nos. *6>?*, *6(5(, *6)*, *6(?>, *)66 and $ith all theaccused in criminal case No. *+*77 of the Court of First nstance of Manila$ith the other members, officers and;or affiliates of the Communist Part% of the Philippines and the 9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a N" Ba%an and $ith man%others $hose identities and $hereabouts are still un:no$n, actin" in

accordance $ith their conspirac% and in furtherance thereof, and mutuall%helpin" one another, did, then and there, $ilfull%, unla$full% and feloniousl%,help, support, promote, maintain, direct and;or command the 9u:balahaps9<=1/ or the 9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a N" Ba%an 9MB/, to rise publicl% andta:e arms a"ainst the "overnment of the Republic of the Philippines, or other$ise participate in such public armed uprisin"s for the purpose of removin" the territor% of the Philippines from the alle"iance to the"overnment and la$s thereof as in fact the said X9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a N"Ba%an 9MB/ or the 9u:balahapsY 9<=1/ pursuant to such conspirac%,have risen publicl% and ta:en arms a"ainst the overnment of the Republicof the Philippines to attain said purpose, b% then and there ma:in" armedraids, sorties, and ambuscades, attac:s a"ainst the Philippine Constabular%,the civilian "uards, the Police and the Arm% Patrols and other detachmentsas $ell as upon innocent civilians, and as a necessar% means to commit the

crime of Rebellion, in connection there$ith and in furtherance thereof, havethen and there committed $anton acts of murder, pilla"e, lootin", plunder,:idnappin" and planned destructions of private and public propert% andplotted the li2uidation of "overnment officials, to create and spread disorder,terror, confusion, chaos and fear so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, amon" $hich are as fol lo$s, to$it4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

X*. &hat on or about April (5, *+6+ at =ilometer 7( at Barrio 1alubsob,municipalit% of Nueva Eci8a, an undetermined number of 9<=1 led b%Commanders iernes, Mar!an, upon and Mulon" did, then and there,$illfull%, unla$full% and feloniousl% ambush, assault, attac: and fired uponthe part% of Mrs. Aurora A. Gue!on and her PC escort $hom the%considered as their enemies resultin" in the :illin" of Mrs. Aurora A. Gue!on,Bab% Gue!on, Ma%or Bernardo of Gue!on Cit%, Ma8or P. 1an A"ustin,ieutenant asam, Philip Buencamino , and several soldiers and the$oundin" of eneral alandoni and Captain Manalan".

X(. &hat on or about Au"ust (7, *+> in 1anta Cru!, a"una, about onehundred armed 9<=1 $ith intent to "ain and for the purpose of securin"supplies and other materials for the support and meintenance of the9u:bon" Mapa"pala%a N" Ba%an 9MB1/ did, then and there, $illfull%,unla$full% and feloniousl% and forcibl% brin"in" the Cashier of the Provincial&reasur%, Mr. icente Reventar from his house to the Provincial Capitol andat the point of "uns forced him to open the &reasur% ault and too:

therefrom Ei"ht% &housand Pesos P5>,>>>/ consistin" of variousdenominations and includin" Fift%, 'ne hundred and Five-9undred PesoBills and also too: a$a% $ith them t%pe- $riters and other 'ffice supplies$hich the% found in the Provincial Capitol Buildin", burnin" and lootin"private buildin"s in to$ns.

X). &hat on or about the %ears *+* to *+( in the municipalit% of Pasacao,Camarines 1ur, Philippines, a "roup of Armed 9u:s under Commander

Rustum raided the house of one Nemesio Palo, a police ser"eant of ibmanan, Camarines 1ur and as a result, said 9<=1 $ere able to capturesaid Nemesio Palo and once captured, $ith evident premeditation, treacher%and intent to :ill, stab, shot and cut the nec: of said Nemesio Palo thereb%causin" the instantaneous death of Nemesio Palo.

X6. &hat on or about anuar% )*, *+), at barrio of 1anta Rita, 0el alle"o,Camarines 1ur a "roup of 9MB1 $ith Federico eronimo alias Commander 'scar ambushed and fired upon an Arm% Patrol headed b% Cpl. Ba%rante,resultin" in seriousl% $oundin" of Pfc. Paneracio &orrado and Eusebio rutaa civilian.

X. &hat on or about Februar% *+6 at barrio Cotmo, 1an Fernando,Camarines 1ur, a "roup of four 9MB1 led b% accused Commander 'scar

$ith evident premeditation, $illfull%, unla$full% and feloniousl% :illed onePolicarpio &ipa% a barrio lieutenant.YW !ppelleeYs brief, pp. *-5/

Accused Federico eronimo first entered a plea of not "uilt% to theinformation. Dhen the case $as called for trial on 'ctober *(, *+6,ho$ever, he as:ed the permission of the court to substitute his ori"inal plea$ith one of "uilt%, and $as allo$ed to chan"e his plea. 'n the basis of theplea of "uilt%, the fiscal recommended that the penalt% of life imprisonmentbe imposed upon the accused, his voluntar% plea of "uilt% bein" consideredas a miti"atin" circumstance. eronimoYs counsel, on the other hand,ar"ued that the penalt% imposable upon the accused $as onl% prision ma%or,for the reason that in his opinion, there is no such comple3 crime as rebellion$ith murders, robberies, and :idnappin", because the crimes of murdersrobberies, and :idnappin" bein" the natural conse2uences of the crime of

rebellion, the crime char"ed a"ainst the accused should be considered onl%as simple rebellion. 'n 'ctober *5, *+6, the trial court rendered 8ud"mentfindin" the accused "uilt% of the comple3 crime of rebellion $ith murders,robberies, and :idnappin"sK chan roblesvirtuala$librar%and "ivin" him thebenefit of the miti"atin" circumstance of voluntar% plea of "uilt%, sentencedhim to suffer the penalt% of reclusion perpetua, to pa% a fine of P*>,>>>, toindemnif% the heirs of the various persons :illed, as listed in the information,in the sum of P7,>>> each, and to pa% the proportionate costs of theproceedin"s. From this 8ud"ment, accused Federico eronimo appealed,raisin" the sole 2uestion of $hether the crime committed b% him is the



comple3 crime of rebellion $ith murders, robberies, and :idnappin"s, or simple rebellion.

After mature consideration, a ma8orit% of seven 8ustices * of this Court are of the opinion that the issue posed b% !ppellant has been alread% decided inthe recent resolution of this Court in the case of People vs. 9ernande! et al.,++ Phil., (+K chan roblesvirtuala$librar%(* a$%ers ournal, No. ? ul% )*,*+7Q, p. )*7/. As in treason, $here both intent and overt act are necessar%,

the crime of rebellion is inte"rated b% the coe3istence of both the armeduprisin" for the purposes e3pressed in article *)6 of the Revised PenalCode, and the overt acts of violence described in the first para"raph of article *). &hat both purpose and overt acts are essential components of one crime, and that $ithout either of them the crime of rebellion le"all% doesnot e3ist, is sho$n b% the absence of an% penalt% attached to article *)6. ( tfollo$s, therefore that an% or all of the acts described in article *), $hencommitted as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends describedin article *)6, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion, and cannot bere"arded or penali!ed as distinct crimes in themselves. n la$ the% are partand parcel of the rebellion itself, and cannot be considered as "ivin" rise to aseparate crime that, under article 65 of the Code, $ould constitute acomple3 one $ith that of rebellion.

&he terms emplo%ed in the first para"raph of article *) of the RevisedPenal Code to describe the component of violence in the crime of rebellionare broad and "eneral. &he 1panish te3t $hich is the one controllin",People vs. Manaba, 5 Phil. 77/ states that the acts of the rebels ma%consists of I

W1osteniendo combate ) con la fuer!a leal, causando estra"os en laspropiedades, e8erciendo violencia "rave, e3i"iendo contribuciones, odistro%endo caudales publicos de su inversion le"itima.Z

f all the overt acts char"ed in the information a"ainst herein !ppellant $erecommitted for political ends or in furtherance of the rebellion, the% come$ithin the precedin" description. &hus, count 6 ambushin" and firin" uponarm% patrol/ constitutes en"a"in" in combat $ith the lo%al troopsK chan

roblesvirtuala$librar%count ( ta:in" funds and e2uipment from theProvincial &reasur% of a"una/ is divertin" public funds from their li"itimatepurposeK chan roblesvirtuala$librar%$hile the :illin"s outlined in the other counts *, ) and / are instances of committin" serious violence.

&he ma8orit% of the Court found no co"ent reason for limitin" Wcommission of serious violenceZ in article *) to hostilities a"ainst the overnmentYs armedforces e3clusivel%K chan roblesvirtuala$librar%for in that case, the former e3pression $ould be redundant and mere duplication of Wen"a"in" incombatZ $ith lo%al troops, also described in the same article. f the inflictionof Wserious violenceZ $as separatel% e3pressed in the la$, it is because the

violence referred to is that inflicted upon civilians. A"ain, to restrict WseriousviolenceZ to acts short of homicide, is to un$arrantedl% assume that thebroad term Wviolencia "raveZ is used in the limited sense of Wlesiones"ravesZ, $hich in our Penal Code has a speciali!ed si"nification. n truth, if ph%sical in8uries constitute "rave violence, so $ould :illin" necessaril% be, if not more. Additionall%, it ma% be observed that rebellion is b% nature a crimeof masses or multitudes, involvin" cro$d action, that cannot be confined a

priori $ithin predetermined bounds. People vs. 9ernande!, supraK chanroblesvirtuala$librar%People vs. Alma!an, C. A., )* 'ff. a!. *+)(/. 9encethe broad terms emplo%ed b% the statute.

&he prosecution insists that the Wmore seriousZ crime of murder cannot be 8ustifiabl% re"arded as absorbed b% the lesser crime of rebellion. n the firstplace, it is not demonstrated that the :illin" of an individual is intrinsicall%less serious or less dan"erous to societ% than the violent subversion of established "overnment, $hich emperils the lives of man% citi!ens, at leastdurin" the period of the stru""le for superiorit% bet$een rebels and lo%alists.f, on the other hand, murder is punished b% reclusion perpetua to death, andrebellion onl% b% prision ma%or, this lenienc% is due to the political purposethat impels ever% rebellious act. As noted b% roi!ard WCodi"o Penal de*5?>Z, ol. ), p. ()+/ I

WEl analisis de toda clase de delitos politicos ofrece para el 8urisconsulto unresultado precioso, pues pone de relieve las diferencias cardinales 2uee3isten entre esta clase de hechos % los delitos comunesK chanroblesvirtuala$librar%entre los reos de a2uellos crimenes % los reos de estosotros. Para los delitos comunes, la sociedad tiene una constante % ener"icareprobacion 2ue no atenua ni el trascurso de tiempo ni el cambio de lasideas. Para los delitos politicos, no. Guien se atrevera si de honrado seprecia, a hacer alarde de la amistad de un hombre condenado por robo opor asesinatoU J 2uien no ha tendido la mano cariLosa sin perder nada derespetabilidad, a al"un reo de un delito politico en la serie continuada derevoluciones % contrarevoluciones 2ue constitu%en des"raciadamente losultimos periodos de nuestra historiaU a consumacion del delito % el e3ito dela rebelion, %a lo hemos dicho, para el reo politico, es mas 2ue la impunidad,

es el triunfo, es el poder, es el obierno, es casi la "loria. Pero no sucede lomismo tratandose de delitos comunes4chanroblesvirtualla$librar% laconsumacion del delito ni apa"a el remordimiento, ni ale8a del criminal elpeli"ro de la pena, ni me8ora en nada su condicion respecto de la 8usticia.9a%, pues, entre el delito comun % el delito politico, entre las personasresponsables de unos % otros diferencias sustanciales, % el ma%or error 2ueen el estado actual de los estudios 8uridicos puede cometer el le"islador esno apreciar eses diferencias, sobre todo en la aplicacion de las penas.Z

And our histor% of three centuries of uninterrupted rebellions a"ainstsoverei"n 1pain, until she $as finall% driven from our shores, suffices to



e3plain $h% the penalt% a"ainst rebellion, $hich stood at reclusion temporalma3imum to death in the 1panish Penal Code of *5?>, $as reduced onl%prision ma%or in our revised Penal Code of *+)(.

n addition, the "overnment counselYs theor% that an act punished b% moreserious penalt% cannot be absorbed b% an act for $hich a lesser penalt% isprovided, is not correct. &he theor% is emphaticall% refuted b% the treatmentaccorded b% the Penal Code to the crime of forcible abduction, for $hich the

la$ imposes onl% reclusion temporal article )6(/, not$ithstandin" that suchcrime necessaril% involves ille"al detention of the abducted $oman for $hicharticle (7? of the same Penal Code fi3es the penalt% of reclusion temporal,in its ma3imum period, to death. &he same situation obtains in the crime of slaver% defined in article (?(, $hereb% the :idnappin" of a human bein" for the purpose of enslavin" him is punished $ith prision ma%or and a fine of notmore than P*>,>>>.>>, $hen :idnappin" itself is penali!ed b% article (7?$ith a much hi"her penalt%.

And $e have alread% pointed out in the 9ernande! resolution that to admitthe comple3in" of the crime of rebellion $ith the felonies committed infurtherance thereof , $ould lead to these undesirableresults4chanroblesvirtualla$librar% */ to ma:e the punishment for rebellionheavier than that of treason, since it has been repeatedl% held that the latter admits no comple3in" $ith the overt acts committed in furtherance of thetreasonous intent, and, in addition, re2uires t$o $itnesses to ever% overt act$hich is not true in the case of rebellionK chan roblesvirtuala$librar%(/ tonullif% the polic% e3pressed in article *) R.P.C./ of imposin" lesser penalt%upon the rebel follo$ers as compared to their leaders, because under thecomple3in" theor% ever% rebel, leader or follo$er, must suffer the heavier penalt% in its ma3imum de"reeK chan roblesvirtuala$librar%and )/ to violatethe fundamental rule of criminal la$ that all doubts should be resolved infavor of the accused4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%Win dubiis reus estabsolvendusZK chan roblesvirtuala$librar%Wnullum crimen, nulla poena, sinele"e.Z

'f course, not ever% act of violence is to be deemed absorbed in the crimeof rebellion solel% because it happens to be committed simultaneousl% $ithor in the course of the rebellion. f the :illin", robbin", etc. $ere done for private purposes or profit, $ithout an% political motivation, the crime $ouldbe separatel% punishable and $ould not be absorbed b% the rebellion. Butever then, the individual misdeed could not be ta:en $ith the rebellion toconstitute a comple3 crime, for the constitutive acts and intent $ould beunrelated to each otherK chan roblesvirtuala$librar%and the individual crime$ould not be a means necessar% for committin" the rebellion as it $ould notbe done in preparation or in furtherance of the latter. &his appears $ithutmost clarit% in the case $here an individual rebel should commitrapeK chan roblesvirtuala$librar%certainl% the latter felon% could not be said

to have been done in furtherance of the rebellion or facilitated itscommission in an% $a%. &he ravisher $ould then be liable for t$o separatecrimes, rebellion and rape, and the t$o could not be mer"ed into a 8uridical$hole.

t is ar"ued that the suppression in the present Penal Code of article (66 of the old one article (+ of the 1panish Penal Code of *5?>/ indicates theintention of the e"islature to revive the possibilit% of the crime of rebellion

bein" comple3ed $ith the individual felonies committed in the coursethereof, because the suppressed article prohibited such comple3in". &hete3t of the suppressed provision is as follo$s4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

WAR&. (66. os delitos particulares cometidos en una rebelion o sedicion, ocon motivo de ellas, seran casti"ados respectivamente se"un lasdisposiciones de este codi"o.

Cuando no puedan descubrirse sus autores, seran penados como tales los 8efes principales de la rebelion o sedicion.Z

&he first para"raph is to the effect that the Wdelitos particularesZ meanin"felonies committed for private non-political ends, as held b% thecommentators Cuello Calon and iada, since the Penal Code does notclassif% crimes into W"eneralZ and WparticularZ/ are to be dealt $ith separatel%from the rebellion, punishment for each felon% to be visited upon theperpetrators thereof. &his para"raph has no bearin" on the 2uestion of comple3 crimes, but is a mere conse2uence of the fact that the delictscommitted for private ends bear no relation to the political crime of rebellionother than a coincidence of time/ and therefore must be separatel% dealt$ith. &his is so obvious that, as roi!ard pointed out ol. ), p. 7>/, suchaction their punishment as a private misdeed/ $ould be ta:en b% the courtseven if this first para"raph of article (66 had not been $ritten.

Far more si"nificant, in the opinion of the ma8orit%, is that our Revised PenalCode of *+)( did not revive the rule contained in the second para"raph of article (66 of the old Penal Code Article (+ of the 1panish/, $hereb% therebel leaders $ere made criminall% responsible for the individual felonies

committed durin" the rebellion or on occasion thereof, in case the realperpetrators could not be found. n effect that para"raph established acommand responsibilit%K chan roblesvirtuala$librar%and in suppressin" it, thee"islature plainl% revealed a polic% of re8ectin" an% such commandresponsibilit%. t $as the le"islative intent, therefore, that the rebel leadersand $ith "reater reason, the mere follo$ers/ should be held accountablesolel% for the rebellion, and not for the individual crimes delitos particulares/committed durin" the same for private ends, unless their actual participationtherein $as dul% established. n other $ords, the suppression of article (66of the old Penal Code virtuall% ne"ates the contention that the rebellion andthe individual misdeeds committed durin" the same should le"all% constitute



one comple3 $hole. Dhether or not such polic% should be maintained is notfor the courts, but for the e"islature, to sa%.

But $hile a ma8orit% of seven 8ustices 6 are a"reed that if the overt actsdetailed in the information a"ainst the !ppellant had been dul% proved tohave been committed Was a necessar% means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection there$ith and in furtherance thereofZ, then theaccused could onl% be convicted of simple rebellion, the opinions differ as to

$hether his plea of "uilt% renders the accused amenable to punishment notonl% for rebellion but also for murder or other crimes.

1i3 8ustices believe that concedin" the absence of a comple3 crime, still,b% his plea of "uilt% the accused- !ppellant has admitted all the actsdescribed in the five separate counts of the informationK chanroblesvirtuala$librar%and that if an% of such counts constituted anindependent crime committed $ithin the 8urisdiction of the lo$er court asseems to be the case under the facts alle"ed in Count No. the :illin" of Policarpio &iba%/, then the avertment in the information that it $asperpetrated in furtherance of the rebellion, bein" a mere conclusion, cannotbe a bar to !ppellant Ys conviction and punishment for said offense, he havin"failed, at the arrai"nment, to ob8ect to the information on the "round of multiplicit% of crimes char"ed. 9ence, the acts char"ed in Counts * to 6cannot be ta:en into consideration in this case, either because the% $erecommitted outside the territorial 8urisdiction of the court belo$ Count */, or because the alle"ations do not char"e the !ppellant Ys participation Count)/, or else the acts char"ed are essentiall% acts of rebellion, $ith out privatemotives Counts ( and 6/.

Five 8ustices, 7 on the other hand, hold that b% his plea of "uilt%, the accusedavo$ed havin" committed the overt acts char"ed in all five countsK chanroblesvirtuala$librar%but that he onl% admitted committin" them in fact Was anecessar% meansZ, Win connection and in furtherance of the rebellionZ, ase3pressl% alle"ed b% the prosecution. &his is not onl% because theinformation e3pressl% alle"ed the necessar% connection bet$een the overtacts and the political ends pursued b% the accused, but in addition, it failedto char"e that the !ppellant $as impelled b% private motives. Dherefore,such overt acts must be ta:en as essential in"redients of the sin"le crime of rebellion, and the accused pleaded "uilt% to this crime alone. 9ence, therebein" no comple3 crime, the !ppellant can onl% be sentenced for the lonecrime of rebellion. Even more, the minorit% contends that under the ver%theor% of the ma8orit%, the circumstances surroundin" the plea are such as toat least cast doubt on $hether the accused clearl% understood that he $aspleadin" "uilt% to t$o different crimes or to onl% oneK chanroblesvirtuala$librar%so that in fairness and 8ustice, the case should be sentbac: for a rehearin" b% the Court of ori"in, to ascertain $hether or not theaccused full% reali!ed the import of his plea <.1. vs. Patala, ( Phil.,

?(K chan roblesvirtuala$librar%<.1. vs. A"caoili, )* Phil., +*K chanroblesvirtuala$librar%<.1. vs. amad, )? Phil., )>/.

n vie$ of the fore"oin", the decision appealed from is modified and theaccused convicted for the simple non-comple3/ crime of rebellion under article *) of the Revised Penal Code, and also for the crime of murderK chan roblesvirtuala$librar%and considerin" the miti"atin" effect of his plea of "uilt%, the accused- !ppellant Federico eronimo is hereb%

sentenced to suffer 5 %ears of prision ma%or and to pa% a fine of P*>,>>>,$ithout subsidiar% imprisonment pursuant to article )5 of the Penal Code/for the rebellionK chan roblesvirtuala$librar%and, as above e3plained, for themurder, appl%in" the ndeterminate 1entence a$, to not less than *> %earsand * da% of prision ma%or and not more than *5 %ears of reclusiontemporalK chan roblesvirtuala$librar%to indemnif% the heirs of Policarpio&iba% in the sum of P7,>>>K chan roblesvirtuala$librar%and to pa% thecosts. SO OR)ERE).

P#r#(, C.J., e$3o$, Re+e(, "., #t'(t# "$3eo, L#br#%or,Co$ce&c'o$ #$% Fe'D, JJ., co$cr.

Se&#r#te O&'$'o$(

MONTEMAYOR, J., concurring and dissenting:canro!les"irtualla#li!rar$

After statin" the facts and the issues in this case, the learned ma8orit%opinion declares that the ma8orit% of seven ustices of the Court are of theopinion that the issue posed b% the !ppellants has been alread% decided inthe recent resolution of this Court in the case of People vs. 9ernande!, etal., ++ Phil., (+/. 9ad the considerations ended there and the case $asdecided of the basis of said 9ernande! resolution, $hich the ma8orit% of ustices apparentl% ratified, $ould have contended m%self $ith merel%citin" and ma:in" as part of m% concurrence and dissent, m% dissentin"

opinion in that same case of 9ernande!, supra. 9o$ever, the ma8orit% notonl% ratifies and emphasi!es the considerations and doctrine laid do$n inthe 9ernande! case, but ma:es further considerations, additional and ne$,and even 2uote authorities, for $hich reason, a"ain find m%self in a position$here am constrained not onl% to cite m% dissentin" opinion in the9ernande! case, but also ma:e further observations not onl% to discuss thene$ point raised, but also in an endeavor to clarif% and present a clear picture of our present la$ on rebellion and its ori"in.



For purposes of read% reference, deem it convenient to reproduce articles*)6 and *) of the Revised Penal Code, readin" asfollo$s4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

WAR&. *)6. Rebellion or insurrection. I 9o$ committed. I &he crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed b% bein" publicl% and ta:in" armsa"ainst the overnment for the purpose of removin" from the alle"iance tosaid overnment or its la$s, the territor% of the Philippine slands or an% part

thereof of an% bod% of land, naval or other armed forces, or of deprivin" theChief E3ecutive or the e"islature, $holl% or partiall%, of an% of their po$ersor prero"atives.

WAR&. *). Penalt% for rebellion or insurrection. I An% person $hopromotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion or insurrection, or $ho, $hileholdin" an% public office or emplo%ment ta:es part therein, en"a"in" in $ar a"ainst the forces of the overnment, destro%in" propert% or committin"serious violence, e3actin" contributions or divertin" public funds from thela$ful purpose for $hich the% have been appropriated, shall suffer thepenalt% of prision ma%or and a fine not to e3ceed (>,>>> pesos.

WAn% person merel% participatin" or e3ecutin" the commands of others in arebellion shall suffer the penalt% of prision ma%or in its minimum period.

WDhen the rebellion or insurrection shall be under the command of un:no$nleaders, an% person $ho in fact directed the others, spo:e for them, si"nedreceipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the rebels shall be deemed the leader of such rebellion.Z

am also reproducin" the 1panish te3t of the above Article *) because as$ell stated in the ma8orit% opinion on the stren"th of the case People vs.Manaba, 5 Phil., 77, the 1panish te3t of the Rev. P. Code $as the oneapproved b% the e"islature and so is controllin".

WAR&. *). Pena para la rebelion o insurreccion. I 1era casti"ado conprision ma%or % multa 2ue no e3ceda de (>,>>> pesos el promovedor,sostenedor o 8efe de la rebelion o insurreccion o el 2ue hubiere tomadoparte en ella siendo funcionario o empleado publico, sosteniendo combate

contra la fuer!a leal, causando estra"os en las propiedades, e8erciendoviolencia "rave, e3i"iendo contribuciones, o distra%endo caudales publicosde su inversion le"itima.

Wos meros afiliados o e8ecutores de la rebelion seran casti"ados con prisionma%or en su "rado minimo.

WCuando los 8efes de una rebelion o insurreccion fueran desconocidos, sereputaran por tales los 2ue de hecho hubieren diri"ido a los demas, llevadola vo! por ellos, firmado recibos % otros escritos e3pedidos a su nombre oe8ercitado otros actos seme8antes en representacion de los rebeldes.Z

&he ma8orit% sa%s, and 2uote4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

WAs in treason, $here both intent and overt acts are necessar%, the crime of rebellion is inte"rated b% the coe3istence of both the armed uprisin" for thepurposes e3pressed in article *)6 of the Revised Penal Code, and the overtacts of violence described in the first para"raph of article *). &hat bothpurpose and overt acts are essential components of one crime, and that$ithout either of them the crime of rebellion le"all% does not e3ist, is sho$n

b% the absence of an% penalt% attached to article *)6.Z

cannot a"ree $holl% to the correctness of the above proposition. t is truethat in treason as $ell as in rebellion both intent and overt acts arenecessar%, e3cludin" of course conspirac% and proposal to commit rebellion$here overt acts are not necessar% article *)7/, but $hat consider the fla$in the thesis is the claim that in rebellion, the armed uprisin" is the intent andthe overt acts are those act of violence described in the first para"raph of article *), namel%, en"a"in" the overnment forces in combat, causin"dama"e to propert%, committin" serious violence, etc. &o me, the intent inrebellion is the purpose, the intention and the ob8ective of the rebels toremove from the alle"iance of the "overnment or its la$s the territor% of thePhilippines or an% part thereof, of an% bod% of land, naval or an% armedforces, etc., and the overt act or acts are the risin" publicl% and ta:in" armsa"ainst said overnment. Article *)6 contains and includes both elements,intent and overt acts to constitute a complete crime. 1aid article *)6, $ithoutma:in" an% reference to an% other article, described the manner rebellion iscommitted, not partiall% but full% and completel%, $ithout an% 2ualification$hatsoever, and said description is complete in order to render personsincluded therein as havin" consummated the crime of rebellion. Article *)6in part reads.

WAR&. *)6. Rebellion or insurrection. I 9o$ committed. I &he crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed b% risin" publicl% and ta:in" armsa"ainst the overnmentZ etc.

t is necessar% to consider the ori"in and histor% of the provisions of articles*)6 and *) of the Revised Penal Code as have previousl% reproduced.

&his, in order to have a clearer understandin" of the meanin" of both articlesand the spirit and intention behind them. 'ur present Revised Penal Code isa revision of our Penal Code promul"ated in the Philippines on ul% *6, *55?later referred to as the Penal Code of *55?/, based upon and ta:en almostbodil% from the 1panish Penal Code of *5?> later referred to as the PenalCode of *5?>/. 'ur Penal Code of *55? adopted in "reat measure theprovisions of the Penal Code of *5?>. 9o$ever, the provisions of our PenalCode of *55? on rebellion, $ere superseded and replaced b% the provisionsof Act No. (+( of the Philippine Commission, $hich "overned rebellion up to*+)( $hen the Revised Penal Code $ent into effect. n dealin" $ith the



crime of rebellion, the Committee on Revision abandoned the provisions of Act No. (+( and $ent bac: to and adopted those of the Penal Code of *5?>,althou"h it included the more beni"n and li"hter penalties imposed in Act No.(+(. &he provisions of the Penal Code of *5?> on rebellion are rather complicated for the reason that in definin" and penali!in" acts of rebellion,the% ma:e reference to the provisions re"ardin" crimes a"ainst the form of "overnment. For this reason, to have an over all picture of the la$ on

rebellion, $e have to ma:e reference to and cite, even reproduce, portionsof the codal provision on crimes a"ainst the form of "overnment. For thesa:e of brevit% and so as not to undul% len"then this opinion, shall confinem%self to the reproduction of the pertinent provisions of the 1panish PenalCode of *5?>, for bein" the source of our Penal Code of *55?, besides theli:elihood if not a fact that since as alread% stated, the provisions of our Penal Code of *55? on rebellion $ere not in force at the time of the revision,the Committee revisin" said Penal Code of *55?, must have consideredmainl% the provisions of the Penal Code of *5?>.

Art. *56 of the 1p. P. Code of *5?> reads, thus4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

0elitos contra la forma de obierno

WAR&. *56. os 2ue se al!aren publicamente en armas % en abierta

hostilidad para perperar cual2uiera de los delitos previstos en el articulo*5*, seran casti"ados con las penas si"uientes4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

W*.[ os 2ue hubieren promovido el al!amiento o lo sostuvieren o lodiri"ieren o aparecieren como sus principales autores, con la pena dereclusion temporal en su "rado ma3imo a muerte.

W(.[ os 2ue e8ercieren un mando subalterno, con la de reclusion temporal amuerte, si fueren personas constituidas en Autoridad civil o eclesiastica, o sihubiere habido combate entre la fuer!a de su mando % la fuer!a publica fielal obierno, o a2uKlla hubiere causado estra"os en las propiedades de losparticulares, de los pueblos o del Estado, cortado las lineas tele"raficas olas ferreas, e8ercido violencias "raves contra las personas, e3i"idocontribuciones o distraido los candales publicos de su le"itima inversion.

WFuera de estos casos, se impondra al culpable la pena de reclusiontemporal.

W).[ os meros e8ecutores del al!amiento con la pena de prision ma%or ensu "rado medio a reclusion temporal en su "rado medio a reclusiontemporal en su "rado minimo, en los casos previstos en el parrafo primerodel numero anterior, % con la de prision ma%or en toda su e3tension, en loscomprendidos en el parrafo se"undo del propio numero.Z

Art. (6) of the same code reads as follo$s4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

0elitos contra el 'rden Publico

WAR&. (6). 1on resos de rebelion los 2ue se al!aren publicamente % enabierta hostilidad contra el obierno para cual2uiera de los ob8etossi"uientes4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

W*.[ 0estronar al Re%, deponer el Re"ente o Re"encia del Reino, o privarlesde su libertad personal u, obli"arles a e8ecutar un acto contrario a suvoluntad.

W(.[ mpedir la celebracion de las elecciones para 0iputados a Cortes o1enadores en todo el Reino, o la reunion le"itima de las mismas.

W).[ 0isolver las Cortes o impedir la deliberacion de al"uno de los CuerposCole"isladores o arrancarles al"una resolucion.

W6.[ E8ecutar cual2uiera delos delitos previstos en el art. *7.

W.[ 1ustraer el Reino o parte de el o al"un cuerpo de tropa de tierra o demar, o cual2uiera otra clase de fuersa armada, de la obediencia al supremoobierno.

W7.[ <sar % e8ercer por si o despo8ar a los Ministros de la Corona de susfacultades constitucionales, o impedirles o coartarles su libre e8ercicio.

AR&1. (66, (6 and (67 of the same code read as

follo$s4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

WAR&. (66. I os 2ue induciendo % determinando a los rebeldes, hubieronpromovido o sostuvieren la rebellion, % los candillos principales de esta,seran casti"ados con la pena de reclusion temporal en su "rado ma3imo amuerte.

WAR&. (6. I os e8erciaren un mando subalterno en la rebelion incurriranen la pena de reclusion temporal a muerte, si se encontraren en al"uno delos casos previstos en el parrafo primero del numero (.[ del articulo*56K chan roblesvirtuala$librar%% con la de reclusion temporal si no seencontraren incluidos en nin"uno de ellos.

WAR&. (67. I os meros e8ecutores de la rebelion seran casti"ados con lapena de prision ma%or en su "rado medio a reclusion temporal en su "radominimo, en los casos previstos en el parrafo primero del numero (.[ delarticulo *56K chan roblesvirtuala$librar%% con la de prision ma%or en toda sue3tension no estando en el mismo comprendidos.

t $ill be observed that in draftin" Art. *)6 of our Revised Penal Code, theCommittee on Revision later referred to as Code Committee/ adopted, $iththe e3clusion of numbers *, (, ), 6 and 7 of Art. (6) $hich refer to the =in"and the le"islative bodies of the =in"dom of 1pain, the provisions of said art.(6) of the Penal Code of *5?>, particularl%, the first part thereof and alsoNo. , even their phraseolo"% I



Wson reos de rebelion los 2ue se al!aren publicamente % en abiertahostilidad contra el obiernoZ crala$ and Wsustraer el Reino o parte de el oal"un cuerpo de tropa de tierra o de mar, o cual2uiera otra clase de fuer!aarmada, de la obediencia al supremo obiernoZ, the crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed b% risin" publicl% and ta:in" arms a"ainst theovernment for the purpose of removin" from the alle"iance to saidovernment or its la$s, the territor% of the Philippine slands or an% part

thereof of an% bod% of land, naval or other armed forces/, our article *)6/.No$, as re"ards the penalt% for rebellion, it $ill be seen that under article(66 Penal Code of *5?>/, persons $ho b% incitin" and encoura"in" therebels shall have brou"ht about or shall sustain a rebellion as $ell as theprincipal leaders of such rebellion as are penali!ed $ith reclusion temporalin its ma3imum de"ree of death. <nder article (6, same code, thoseholdin" a subordinate command in the rebellion are penali!ed $ith reclusiontemporal to death, if the% are included in an% of the cases provided for inpara"raph * of No. ( of article *56, $hich for purposes of read% reference$e a"ain reproduce, thus4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

W crala$ si fueren personas constituidas en Autoridad civil o eclesiastica, o sihubiere habido combate entre la fuer!a de su mando % la fuer!a publica fielal obierno, o a"uella hubiere causado estra"os en las propiedades de los

particulares, de los pueblos o del Estado, cortado las lineas tele"raficas olas vias ferreas, e8ercido violencias "raves contra las personas, e3i"idocontribuciones o distraidos los caudales publicos de su le"itima inversion.ZK

or if not so included, the penalt% is reclusion temporal.

<nder article (67, those persons merel% participatin" in the rebellion arepenali!ed $ith prision ma%or in its medium de"ree to reclusion temporal inits minimum de"ree, in the cases provided for in para"raph * of No. ( of article *56 as above reproduced, but those not so included, $ill suffer thepenalt% onl% of prision ma%or.

As have stated in m% dissentin" opinion in the 9ernande! case, supra, oneof the purposes of the revision of our old Penal Code of *55? $as

simplification and elimination of provisions considered unnecessar%, in proof of $hich, $hile the old Penal Code contained 7** articles, the Revised PenalCode has but )7? articles. &here is ever% reason to believe that the codeCommittee in its endeavor at simplification did not deem it necessar% toprovide a special penalt% for those $ho promote, maintain, or head arebellion as does article (66, and it made a mer"er or combination of articles(66 and (6, so as to impose the same penalt% on */ the promoters andleaders of the rebellion and (/ on those $ho are either holdin" an% publicoffice or emplo%ment instituida en autoridad civil o eclesiastica/ or if not soholdin" an% public office, that their forces have en"a"ed the forces of theovernment in combat, or have caused dama"e to overnment or private

propert%, or committed serious violence, etc. Wsosteniendo combate contrala fuer!a leal, causendo estra"os en las propeidades, e8erciendo violencia"rave, e3i"iendo, contribuciones, o distra%endo caudales publicos de suenversion le"itimaZ/. 1panish te3t of article *) of our revised Penal Code/. cannot believe that the Code Committee in ma:in" the mer"er abandonedthe idea of punishin" the promotion, maintenance, and leadership of arebellion in itself, and that to penali!e the same, it must be connected and

coupled $ith the commission of an% or all of the acts above mentioned,$hich under the Penal Code of *5?>, refers onl% to those holdin" asubordinate command in the rebellion. am convinced that the $hole aimand intention of the Code Committee $as merel% to e2uali!e the penalt% for both sets of rebels I those leaders, promoters, and maintainers of therebellion on the one hand, and those holdin" a subordinate command under the 2ualification stated in para"raph * of article *), but that the former,because of their more serious and heavier criminal responsibilit% their promotions, maintenance, and leadership of the rebellion $ere sufficientl%deservin" of the penalt% of prision ma%or and a fine not, to e3ceedP(>,>>>K chan roblesvirtuala$librar%but for those rebels $ith lesser responsibilit%, to deserve the same penalt%, the% must either be holdin" an%public office or emplo%ment, or if not, that their forces have en"a"edovernment troops in combat, or have caused dama"e to propert%, etc.

1tated differentl%, the clause Wsosteniendo combate contra la fuer!a leal,causando estra"os en las propeidades, e8erciendo violencia "rave,Z etc.,refers to and 2ualifies not the leaders, promoters, and maintainers of therebellion, but onl% those rebels of lesser responsibilit%. n other $ords for theleaders, promoters and maintainers of the rebellion, the rebellion isconsummated and sub8ect to punishment under article *)6. t ma% be thatthe Code Committee that drafted article *) in its endeavors to achieve aphraseolo"% as simple and concise as possible, did not conve% its purposeand intent an% too plainl% and clearl%, but venture to assert that that $as$hat it meant. n case of doubt as to the real meanin" of article *),recourse should be had to its source, namel%, articles (66 and (6 inrelation $ith No. ( para"raph * of article *56 of the 1panish Penal Code of *5?>, for $hich reason deemed it necessar% to reproduce as did said

articles.For the fore"oin" reasons, cannot a"ree $ith the ma8orit% that thecommission of the acts mentioned in Article *)6 alone, even b% the leadersand promoters of the rebellion, carr% no penal sanction. Besides theconsiderations or conclusions alread% adduced a"ainst said holdin" andtheor% of the ma8orit%, there are other reasons. For instance, the secondpara"raph of article *) provides that4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

WAn% person merel% participatin" or e3ecutin" the commands of others in arebellion shall suffer the penalt% of prision ma%or in its minimum period.Z



<nder this provision, one merel% participatin" in a rebellion, that is risin"publicl% and ta:in" arms a"ainst the "overnment under article *)6, ispenali!ed $ith prision ma%or in its minimum period. But under the theor% of the ma8orit%, the leaders of the rebellion $ho perform the same acts definedin the same article *)6 ma% not be punished, unless the% or their forcesen"a"e overnment troops or cause dama"e to propert%, commit seriousviolence, etc. &hat $ould seem to be un8ust and illo"ical.

A"ain, articles *)7 and *)5 of the Revised Penal Code penali!e conspirac%and proposal to commit rebellion and incitin" to rebellion. reproduce saidt$o articles4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

WAR&. *)7. Conspirac% and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection. I&he conspirac% and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall bepunished, respectivel%, b% prision correccional in its ma3imum period and afine $hich shall not e3ceed P,>>>, and b% prision correccional in itsmedium period and a fine not e3ceedin" P(,>>>.Z

WAR&. *)5. I ncitin" to rebellion or insurrection. I &he penalt% of prisionma%or in its minimum period shall be imposed upon an% person $ho, $ithoutta:in" arms or bein" in open hostilit% a"ainst the overnment, shall inciteothers to the e3ecution of an% of the acts specified in article *)6 of this

Code, b% means of speeches, proclamations, $ritin"s, emblems, banners or other representations tendin" to the same end.Z

<nder article *)7, if t$o or more persons merel% conspire and come to ana"reement to commit rebellion or insurrection, $hich is defined in article *)6,$ithout actuall% committin" it or performin" the acts mentioned in said article*)6, the% are alread% "uilt% and are punished $ith prision correcional in itsma3imum period and a f ine not e3ceedin" P,>>>K chanroblesvirtuala$librar%and if the same t$o or more persons 8ust propose tosome other person or persons the commission of rebellion under article *)6,the% are punished $ith prision correccional in its medium period and a f ine of not e3ceedin" P(,>>>. n fine, persons merel% a"reein" and decidin" amon"themselves to rise publicl% and ta:e arms a"ainst the overnment for thepurpose mentioned in article *)6, $ithout actuall% risin" publicl% and ta:in"

arms a"ainst the overnment, or if the% merel% propose the commission of said acts to other persons $ithout actuall% performin" those overt acts under article *)6, the% are alread% sub8ect to punishment. But under the theor% of the ma8orit%, if those same persons, not content $ith merel% conspirin" anda"reein" to commit the acts of rebellion or proposin" its commission toothers, actuall% "o out and actuall% carr% out their conspirac% anda"reement, and rise publicl% and ta:e arms a"ainst the overnment, under article *)6 there is no penalt%. &hat seems to me rather unreasonable andhard to understand.

&hen, under article *)5 of the Revised Penal Code, persons $ho, $ithoutta:in" arms or bein" in open hostilit% a"ainst the overnment under article*)6, merel% incite others to the e3ecution of an% of the acts specified in saidarticle, b% means of speeches, proclamations, $ritin"s, etc., the% arepunished $ith prision ma%or in its minimum period. But accordin" to theinterpretation b% the ma8orit% of articles *)6 and *), if those same persons,not content $ith merel% ma:in" speeches, issuin" proclamations, etc.,

intended to incite others to commit the acts specified in article *)6, actuall%commit those acts themselves, the% incur no penalt%. confess fail to follo$the reasonin" of the ma8orit% on the point.

WRebellion or insurrection. I 9o$ committed. I &he crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed b% risin" publicl% and ta:in" arms a"ainst theovernmentZ. Article *)6/

t is true that article *)6 of our Revised Penal Code itself does not imposean% penal sanctionK chan roblesvirtuala$librar%the reason is that it is a meredefinition, 8ust as article (6) of the 1panish Penal Code of *5?> from $hichit $as ta:en, merel% defines and does not penali!e the acts thereinenumerated. &he fact that the article definin" a crime or describin" ho$ it iscommitted does not itself impose the penalt% does not necessaril% mean thatthe act or acts so defined do not consti tute a crimeK chan

roblesvirtuala$librar%other$ise, all the definition and all the detaileddescription of the commission of said crime $ould become empt%,meanin"less and useless. &he penalt% for rebellion is found in the follo$in"article of *), 8ust as it is found in articles (66, (6 and (67 of the PenalCode of *5?>.

believe that $hen a "roup of dissidents or 9u:balahaps armed anddetermined to overthro$ the overnment raid, sa%, an isolated to$n, scarea$a% the t$o or three policemen on "uard at the presidencia, ta:epossession of the buildin" even for a fe$ hours, raise the rebel fla", call andherd the residents before the presidencia, and ma:e speeches proclaimin"the re"ime of the dessidents and advisin" the "atherin" to transfer their alle"iance and lo%alt% from the constituted overnment to the rebels andstop pa%in" ta3es to said "overnment and instead contribute the funds to the9u:s, $ithout firin" a sin"le shot or committin" an% of the acts enumeratedin article *), the crime of rebellion is complete and consummated and issub8ect to penalt%. n m% modest research for authorities on the sub8ect of rebellion, came across the case of People of the Philippines vs. BenitoCube of the Court of Appeals, . R. No. *>7+-R, decided b% that court onNovember (6, *+65. &here it $as held that4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

W crala$ &he mere fact that !ppellant :no$in"l% identified himself $ith anor"ani!ation that $as openl% fi"htin" to overthro$ the overnment $asenou"h to ma:e him "uilt% of the crime of rebellion. <nder our la$s it is not



necessar% that one has en"a"ed the overnment in a clash of arms tocommit the crime of rebellion. t is not even necessar% that there be a clashof arms bet$een the rebels and the overnment. <. 1. vs. 1adian, ) Phil.,)()./ W

ncidentall%, it ma% be stated that said decision penned b% Mr. usticeutierre! 0avid $as concurred in and si"ned b% Mr. ustice . B. . Re%es,the $riter of the present ma8orit% decision.

&he same Court of Appeals, in the case of People vs. eronimo Pere!, .R. No. +*+7-R, involvin" rebellion cited $ith favor its previous decision in thecase of People vs. Cube, supra, and apparentl% affirmed and ratified thedoctrine laid therein.

No$, as to the nature and application of penalt% of rebellion under our Revised Penal Code, have alread% endeavored to sho$ that our Art. *) isbased upon and ta:en from articles (66, (6 and (67 of this Penal Code of *5?>, thou"h drasticall% reducin" and miti"atin" the severit% of the penaltiesfound in the 1panish Penal Code, and that the Code Committee in its effortat simplification, made a mer"er of Arts. (66, (6 and (67. &he CodeCommittee, feel certain, adopted in principle the scientific and e2uitableclassification of the different persons ta:in" part in the rebellion, scalin"

punishments accordin" to their position in the rebellion and e3tent andseriousness of their responsibilit%. &he Code Committee ma% not have madeitself entirel% clear, and in case of doubt $e should interpret Art. *) inrelation to and considerin" the philosoph% of the 1panish Penal Codeprovisions on the sub8ect of penalties on rebellion in order to avoid theunreasonable, une2uitable, even absurd results have alread% pointed out.&o achieve this, $e ma% have recourse to the rules of statutor% construction.

f a literal interpretation of an% part of a statute $ould operate un8ustl% or leadto absorb results, or be contrar% to the evident meanin" of the Act ta:en as a$hole, it should be re8ected n Re4chanroblesvirtualla$librar% Allen, ( Phil.7)>, 76)/K chan roblesvirtuala$librar%courts permit the elimination of a $ordand its substitution for others $hen it is necessar% to carr% out the le"islativeintent, $here the $ord is found in the statute due to the inadvertence of the

le"islature or reviser, or $here it is necessar% to "ive the act meanin", effect,or intelli"ibilit%, or $here it is apparent from the conte3t of the act that the$ord is surplusa"e, or $here the maintenance of the $ord, $ould lead to anabsurdit% or irrationalit%, or $here the use of the $ord $as a mereinaccurac%, or clearl% apparent mishap, or $here it is necessar% to avoidinconsistencies and to ma:e the provisions of the act harmoni!e1utherland, 1tatutor% Construction, &hird Edition, ol. , pp. 65 676/K chanroblesvirtuala$librar%in the construction of la$s, $hether constitutional or statutor%, the court is not bound to a literal interpretation, $here it $ould leadto an absurdit% or a plain violation of the spirit and purpose of the enactment

McCart% v. oodsman, *7? N. D. >) cited in . R. A. 0i"est, ol. ?, p.55+(/

a"ree $ith the ma8orit% that an% or all the acts described in article *) $hencommitted as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion become absorbedin said rebellion. &he 2uestion no$ is to determine the meanin" and scopeof said acts. &he first act is Wsosteniendo combate contra la fuer!a lealZ,$hich $as erroneousl% translated into En"lish in article *) to Wen"a"in" in

$ar a"ainst the forces of the overnmentZ. n the case of 9ernande!, supra,$e all accepted and follo$ed that En"lish translation, but later found that it$as the 1panish te3t of the Revised Penal Code that $as approved b% thee"islature. Naturall%, $e are bound b% the 1panish te3t.

ncidentall%, if be permitted a little di"ression, the ma8orit% resolution in thatcase of 9ernande! laid much emphasis on the phrase Wen"a"in" in $arZ,and $ould have included and absorbed in the rebellion the :illin"s of andother outra"es to civilians. 2uote4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

W'ne of the means b% $hich rebellion ma% be committed, in the $ords of said article *), is b% Wen"a"in" in $ar a"ainst the forces of the "overnmentZand Xcommittin" serious violenceY in the prosecution of said X$arY. &hesee3pressions impl% ever%thin" that $ar connotes,

namel%4chanroblesvirtualla$librar% resort to arms, re2uisition of propert% andservices, collection of ta3es and contributions, restraint of libert%, dama"e topropert%, ph%sical in8uries and loss of life, and the hun"er, illness andunhappiness that $ar carries in its $a:e I e3cept that, ver% often, it is$orse than $ar in the international sense, for it involves internal stru""le, afi"ht bet$een brothers, $ith a bitterness and passion or ruthlessness seldomfound in a contest bet$een stran"ers. Bein" $ithin the purvie$ of Wen"a"in"in $arZ and Xcommittin" serious violenceY, said resort to arms, $ith theresultin" impairment or destruction of life and propert%, constitutes not t$o or more offenses, but onl% one crime I that of rebellion plain and simple.Z

No$ that $e find that $hat article *) provides is not en"a"in" in $ar, butmerel% en"a"in" in combat, and :no$in" the vast difference bet$een $ar and mere combat, there is the possibilit% that some of the considerations

and conclusions made in that ma8orit% resolution in the 9ernande! case ma%be affected or enervated. n other $ords, our la$ in rebellion contemplateson onl% armed clashes, s:irmishes, ambuscade, and raids, not the $holescale conflict of civil $ar li:e that bet$een the <nion and Confederate forcesin the American Civil Dar, $here the rebels $ere "iven the status of belli"erenc% under the la$s of $ar, and conse2uentl%, $ere accorded muchlee$a% and e3emption in the destruction of life and propert% and the violationof personal libert% and securit% committed durin" the $ar.

a"ree $ith the ma8orit% opinion in the present case that if the dissidentsattac: or are attac:ed b% the overnment forces, and deaths are caused b%



the rebels, said combat, provided that the :illin"s are of overnment troopsor of civilians attached to said troops, li:e informers, "uides, etc. But $heninnocent civilians far from the scene of combat are murdered either becausethe% failed or refuse to s%mpathi!e or cooperate $ith dissidents, or becausethe% are $ealth% lando$ners, or because the% failed to pa% the amount of the ransom for those :idnapped b% the dissidents, said :illin"s cannot andma% not be included and absorbed in the rebellion.

&he ma8orit% sa%s that the term Wviolencia "raveZ "rave violence/enumerated in article *) is broad and ma% include the :illin" of civilians. A"ain, disa"ree. &here is a vast difference bet$een violence, even seriousviolence, and murder or :illin". n committin" the crime of robber%, therobber ma% use violence, even serious violence, on his victimK chanroblesvirtuala$librar%but if the violence results in death, the robber is held"uilt% not onl% of robber% but also homicide, or even murder, unless the t$ocrimes can be considered as a comple3 crime of robber% $ith homicide. nother $ords, the violence, even serious violence, supposed to be included inrobber% does not e3tend to, and include :illin". &he same thin" ma% be saidof the crime of coercion $here force and violence is contemplated. f theviolence used does not result in death, the offender ans$ers onl% for thecrime of coercion, but if the victim dies as a result of the violence to $hich he

$as sub8ected, then said violence contemplated b% the la$ does not e3tendto or cover the death, and the offender ans$er for both homicide andcoercion. &he idea $ish to conve% is that the serious violence mentioned inarticle *) can b% no means be interpreted to include :illin"s.

n the revised or consolidated refundido/ Penal Code of 1pain of *+66, have found the phrase Wviolencia "raveZ used in article *66, in connection$ith article *6(, both under the title 0elitos Contra el efe del Estado. 2uote4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

AR&. *6(. Al 2uematare al efe del Estado se impondra la pena dereclusion ma%or a muerte.

WCon i"ual pena se casti"ara el delito frustrado % la tentativa del mismodelito.Z

WAR&. *66. 1e casti"ara con la pena de reclusion ma%or amuerte4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

W*.[ Al 2ue privare al efe del Estado de su libertad personal.

W(.[ Al 2ue con violencia o intimidacion "raves le obli"are a e8ecutar un actocontra su voluntad.

W).[ Al 2ue le causare lesiones "raves no estando comprendidas en elparrafo se"undo del art. *6(.Z

From the above articles $e can "ather that the 1panish le"islators made thenecessar% and important distinction bet$een the mere use of seriousviolence violencia "rave/ on the Chief of 1tate and causin" his death, b%treatin" of the t$o act separatel% in articles *6( and *66.

n fine, serious violence is one thin" and :illin" or murder is another, entirel%different from each other, one certainl% more serious and a "raver offensethan the other. f serious violence results in death, then said violence

chan"es in aspect and becomes homicide or murder. therefore concludethat the serious violence mentioned in article *), $hich a"ree $ith thema8orit% that it refers to civilians and not to members of the armed forces of the overnment, cannot include :illin"s of said civilians. 'ther$ise, $here$e to hold that the serious violence violencia "rave/ e3tends to andincludes :illin"s and murders, then $e $ould be convertin", thou"hun$ittin"l%, ever% rebellion into an open season for huntin" as it $ere,innocent civilians $ho have the misfortune of livin" $ithin raidin" distancefrom the dissident hideouts.

&he ma8orit% e3plains and "ives reasons for the "reat difference bet$eenmurder on the one hand, penali!ed $ith reclusion temporal to death, andrebellion on the other, punished $ith mere prision ma%or, due to the politicalpurpose that impels ever% rebellious act and 2uotes roi!ard, ol. , p. ()+,

$ho discusses the "reat difference bet$een the crime of, sa%, murder or robber%, and the offense of rebellionK chan roblesvirtuala$librar%that no one$ould care to befriend one convicted as an assassin or robber, but on theother hand $ould "ladl%, even fondl%, sha:e the hand of one convicted of rebellion, and that $hen the rebellion succeeds, the rebel not onl% securesimpunit% to his rebellious act, but also attains po$er, even the "overnmentitself and the "lor%. a"ree. t is no less true, ho$ever, that roi!ard must bereferrin" to a rebel $ith clean hands and a clean conscience, for it is "ravel%to be doubted $hether one $ould sha:e the hand of a rebel drippin" andstained $ith the blood of innocent civilians, a hand responsible for thedevastation and desolation cause to those ver% persons and communities$hich the rebellion pretended to help and liberate from oppression. &hat is$h% roi!ard in his ne3t para"raph, in advocatin" for the reduction of the

ver% severe penalt% attached to rebellion under the 1panish Penal Codedistin"uishes bet$een simple rebellion and one in $hich the common crimesli:e murder, robber%, etc., and committed. 2uote4chanroblesvirtualla$librar%

WCon esto 2ueremos dar a entender 2ue las penas fulminadas en el te3to2ue comentamos nos parcen ante la ra!on % la ciencia in8ustificadas por sudure!a. a pena de muerte, tan combatida ho% en todos terrenos, solopuede defenderse, como tipo ma3imo de represion, para a2uellos delitos2ue revisten en todas sus circumstancias el "rado ma%or 8uridico concebiblede criminalidad. Ahora mite ma3imo de la depravacion humanaUZ 1upplied/



lo$est cate"or%, e3pected onl% to help the residents of his barrio voice their needs and interests before the to$n officials, and receivin" no compensationfor this civic service. &he above mentioned :illin" under counts *, ), and should be comple3ed $ith rebellion and the correspondin" penalt% imposed.n so far as the ma8orit% fails to do this, am constrained to dissent as do. And failin" to secure a conviction for rebellion comple3ed $ith the :illin" of Policarpio &ipa% under count , concur $ith the ma8oritJ infindin" )efendant under said count "uilt% of murder as a separate crime.

E$%e$c'#, ., co$cr(.

PAD%&&A, J., concurring and dissenting:canro!les"irtualla#li!rar$

concur in the opinion of Mr. ustice Montema%or e3cept as to the inclusionof count No. * of the information over $hich the trial court the Court of Firstnstance of Camarines 1ur/ had no 8urisdiction because it $as committed inNueva Eci8a, outside the territorial 8urisdiction of the trial court, unless it isintended as an e3pression of an opinion or a statement of a postulate thatthe crime of rebellion ma% be comple3ed $ith murder. $ish to add thecodifiers of the penal la$s of 1pain, as embodied in the Penal Codes of *5?> and *55?, could not or did not foresee the development and pro"ressof the Communist movement, as mapped out in the Communist Manifesto of 0ecember *56?, $hich aimed at $orld revolution and domination and turnedmore violent since *+*? after the overthro$ of the =erens:i overnment inRussia that succeeded the C!arist re"ime. &he first edition of 0as =apital b%=arl Mar3 $as published in *57?. t is the first volume containin" Boo: *$hich concerns $ith &he Process of Capitalist ProductionK chanroblesvirtuala$librar%and althou"h he had the essential facts or materials of olume $hich $as to be Boo: aimed at e3poundin" on the Process of Capitalist Circulation, and Boo: intended to anal%!e &he Process of Capitalist Production as a Dhole, and of olume to contain Boo: $hich$as to relate a 9istor% of &heories of 1urplus alue, his death on *6 March*55) prevented him from completin" the $or:. Frederic: En"els, hiscollaborator, too: over and published in Ma% *55 olume , &he Process of

Capitalist Circulation, and in 'ctober *5+6 olume , the Capitalist Processof Production as a Dhole. 'n 7 Au"ust *5+ En"els died and Boo: ori"inall% planned as olume $as not completed. &hese volumes andboo:s $ere published b% En"els after *5?>, the %ear $hen the 1panishPenal Code $as enacted or promul"ated. &he turn from e3position of thedefects, faults and evils of capitalism and persuasion to forsa:e it into violentand ruthless means to achieve its discard $ere not anticipated. &heprovisions of article +> of the Penal Code of *5?> and of article 5+ of thePenal Code of *55? $ere due to the vision and foresi"ht of the 1panishcodifiers of their penal la$s. Dhere an indispensable crime is committed to

perpetrate another the result is one crime. Dhere a crime is committed as ameans necessar% to consummate another the result is a comple3 one andthe penalt% provided for the most serious has to be imposed. Rebellion asperpetrated and pursued relentlessl% b% the Communist is a continuin"crime, the ultimate aim of $hich is to overthro$ the e3istin" "overnmentsand to set up their o$n. &o attain that end it is not enou"h for them toachieve partial or local success. &he% al$a%s loo: for$ard to and availthemselves of ever% means and sei!e ever% opportunit% to reali!e theultimate ob8ective. For that reason a crime committed such as murder,robber%, :idnappin", arson and the li:e, thou"h not indispensable for or tothe commission of that of rebellion is nonetheless a means necessar% to theattainment of their ultimate finalit% or end. &o create chaos and confusion, to$ea:en the morale of the populace, to so$ terror and infuse into the mind of the people panic and fear so that the% $ould submit mee:l% to theCommunist importunities, demands, imposition, rule, doctrine, politicalphilosoph% and polic%, are but a means to an end. ie$ed in that li"ht fail tosee an% 8uridical ob8ection or obstacle to the application of the provisions of article 65 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended b% Act No. 6>>>.

As stated in the ma8orit% opinion, and $ithout foresa:in" m% vie$ on thepoint of comple3it% of rebellion $ith murder, a"ree to the penalties imposed

upon the )efendant for t$o crimes upon his plea of "uilt%, for the reason that$ithout m% concurrence there $ould be no sufficient number of votes toimpose the penalt% for the more serious crime.

Endnotes:canro!les"irtualla#li!rar$

;. Chief Justice (aras and Justices 'engson !le2. Re"es 'autista !ngelo Concepcion Re"es >J. '. L.? and #eli2.

:. !rt. ;<4. Rebellion or insurrection. D o+ committed. ,he crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed b" rising publicl" and ta0ing armsagainst the Go*ernment for the purpose of remo*ing from the allegiance tosaid Go*ernment or its la+s the territor" of the (hilippine slands or an" part thereof of an" bod" of land na*al or other armed forces or of depri*ing thechief $2ecuti*e or the Legislati*e +holl" or partiall" of an" of their po+ersor prerogati*es.E

<. i. e. engaging in combatF chan robles*irtuala+librar"not engaging in+arE as erroneousl" stated in $nglish translation. ence the prosecutionHsarguments based on alleged *iolations of the la+s of +ar b" the accused seem out of place.

4. !nte. p. 4. ,he four dissenting justices in the ernande& resolution seeno reason for altering their stand on the %uestion of comple2it" as e2pressed in that case.



7. Justices (adilla Montema"or 'autista !ngelo Labrador $ndencia and #eli2.

8. Chief Justice (aras and Justices 'eng&on !le2 Re"es Concepcionand Re"es J. '. L.

criminal law 2 cases batch 2

Documents