Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
389 of the crime. With either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion legally
People vs. Lovedioro does not exist. In fact, even in cases where the act complained of were committed
simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion, if the killing, robbing, or etc.,
G.R. No. 112235. November 29, 1995. *
were accomplished for private purposes or profit, without any political motivation,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ELIAS
it has been held that the crime would be separately punishable as a common crime
LOVEDIORO y CASTRO, defendant-appellant. and would not be absorbed by the crime rebellion.
Criminal Law; Rebellion; By its very nature, rebellion is essentially a crime of Same; Same; If no political motive is established and proved, the accused
masses or multitudes involving crowd action which cannot be confined a priori should be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion.—It follows,
within predetermined bounds.—The gravamen of the crime of rebellion is an therefore, that if no political motive is established and proved, the accused should
armed public uprising against the government. By its very nature, rebellion is be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion. In cases of rebellion, motive
essentially a crime of masses or multitudes involving crowd action, which cannot relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated to the
be confined a priori within predetermined bounds. One aspect noteworthy in the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself, suffice.
commission of rebellion is that other acts committed in its pursuance 391
VOL. 250, NOVEMBER 29, 1995 391
______________
People vs. Lovedioro
*FIRST DIVISION. Same; Same; The burden of proof that the act committed was impelled by a
390 political motive lies on the accused.—As stated hereinabove, the burden of proof
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED that the act committed was impelled by a political motive lies on the Accused.
People vs. Lovedioro Political motive must be alleged in the information. It must be established by clear
are, by law, absorbed in the crime itself because they require a political and satisfactory evidence.
character. Same; Evidence; Lack or absence of motive for committing a crime does not
Same; Same; In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, not murder, it preclude conviction there being a reliable eyewitness who fully and satisfactorily
becomes imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the act was done in identified appellant as the perpetrator of the felony.—Against appellant’s claims
furtherance of a political end.—Divested of its common complexion therefore, any that he acted merely as a look-out, the testimony of one witness, his blood relative,
ordinary act, however grave, assumes a different color by being absorbed in the free from any signs of impropriety or falsehood, was sufficient to convict the
crime of rebellion, which carries a lighter penalty than the crime of murder. In accused. Moreover, neither may lack of motive be availing to exculpate the
deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, not murder, it becomes imperative for appellant. Lack or absence of motive for committing a crime does not preclude
our courts to ascertain whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a political conviction, there being a reliable eyewitness who fully and satisfactorily identified
end. The political motive of the act should be conclusively demonstrated. appellant as the perpetrator of the felony.
Same; Same; The burden of demonstrating political motive falls on the
defense.—In such cases, the burden of demonstrating political motive falls on the APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, Br.
defense, motive, being a state of mind which the accused, better than any 1.
individual, knows. Thus, in People v. Gempes, this court stressed that: Since this
is a matter that lies peculiarly with (the accused’s) knowledge and since moreover The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
this is an affirmative defense, the burden is on them to prove, or at least to state, The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
which they could easily do personally or through witnesses, that they killed the Ricafort Law Office for accused-appellant.
deceased in furtherance of the resistance movement.
Same; Same; It is not enough that the overt acts of rebellion are duly proven.— KAPUNAN, J.:
From the foregoing, it is plainly obvious that it is not enough that the overt acts of
rebellion are duly proven. Both purpose and overt acts are essential components
Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along Burgos St., away the Daraga Police Station, inflicting upon the latter multiple gunshot wounds
from the Daraga, Albay Public Market when a man suddenly walked beside causing his death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.
him, pulled a .45 caliber gun from his waist, aimed the gun at the After trial, the court a quo found accused-appellant guilty beyond
policeman’s right ear and fired. The man who shot Lucilo had three other reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. The dispositive portion of said
companions with him, one of whom shot the fallen policeman four times as decision, dated September 24, 1993 states:
he lay on the ground. After taking the latter’s gun, the man and his WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, this Court finds the
companions boarded a tricycle and fled. 1
accused ELIAS LOVEDIORO guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal, acting
in conspiracy with his co-accused who are still at large, of the crime of murder,
The incident was witnessed from a distance of about nine meters by
defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby
Nestor Armenta, a 25 year old welder from Pilar, Sorsogon, who claimed
sentences him to
that he knew both the victim and the man
______________
_______________
2 Exhibit “A,” p. 73, Records.
1TSN, May 18, 1993, p. 7. 3 Id.,at 74.
392 393
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 250, NOVEMBER 29, 1995 393
People vs. Lovedioro People vs. Lovedioro
who fired the fatal shot. Armenta identified the man who fired at the suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessories provided by law;
deceased as Elias Lovedioro y Castro, his nephew (appellant’s father was to pay the heirs of the deceased SPO3 Jesus Lucilo through the widow, Mrs.
his first cousin) and alleged that he knew the victim from the fact that the Remeline Lucilo, the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos representing
latter was a resident of Bagumbayan. the civil indemnity for death; to pay the said widow the sum of Thirty Thousand
Lucilo died on the same day of massive blood loss from multiple gunshot (P30,000.00) Pesos representing reasonable moral damages; and to pay the said
widow the sum of Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Eight (P18,588.00)
wounds on the face, the chest, and other parts of the body. On autopsy, the
2
kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, been deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion under Arts. 134 and 135 of
unlawfully and feloniously fire and shoot one SPO3 JESUS LUCILO, a member of the Revised Penal Code. Finally, claiming that he did not fire the fatal shot
but merely acted as a look-out in the liquidation of Lucilo, he avers that he a prioriwithin predetermined bounds. One aspect noteworthy in the
8
should have been charged merely as a participant in the commission of the commission of rebellion is that other acts committed in its pursuance are,
crime of rebellion under paragraph 2 of Article 135 of the Revised Penal by law, absorbed in the crime itself because they require a political
Code and should therefore have been meted only the penalty of prision character. This peculiarity was underscored in the case of People v.
mayor by the lower court. Hernandez, thus:9
Asserting that the trial court correctly convicted appellant of the crime In short, political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as
of murder, the Solicitor General avers that the crime committed by well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose.
appellant may be considered as rebellion only if the defense itself had The decisive factor is the intent or motive. If a crime usually regarded as common,
conclusively proven that the motive or intent for the killing of the policeman like homicide, is perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance ‘to
the Government the
was for “political and subversive ends.” Moreover, the Solicitor General
5
394 395
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 250, NOVEMBER 29, 1995 395
People vs. Lovedioro People vs. Lovedioro
appellant were to be convicted of rebellion, and even if the trial court had territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof,’ then it becomes stripped of
found appellant guilty merely of being a participant in a rebellion, the its “common” complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime of
proper imposable penalty is not prision mayor as appellant contends, rebellion, the former acquires the political character of the latter.
but reclusion temporal, because Executive Order No. 187 as amended by Divested of its common complexion therefore, any ordinary act, however
Republic Act No. 6968, the Coup D’etat Law, prescribes reclusion grave, assumes a different color by being absorbed in the crime of rebellion,
temporal as the penalty imposable for individuals found guilty as which carries a lighter penalty than the crime of murder. In deciding if the
participants in a rebellion. crime committed is rebellion, not murder, it becomes imperative for our
We agree with the Solicitor General that the crime committed was courts to ascertain whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a
murder and not rebellion. political end. The political motive of the act should be conclusively
Under Art. 134 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act demonstrated.
No. 6968, rebellion is committed in the following manner: In such cases, the burden of demonstrating political motive falls on the
[B]y rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of defense, motive, being a state of mind which the accused, better than any
removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the individual, knows. Thus, in People v. Gempes, this Court stressed that:
10
Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other Since this is a matter that lies peculiarly with (the accused’s) knowledge and since
armed forces, or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or moreover this is an affirmative defense, the burden is on them to prove, or at least
partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.6 to state, which they could easily do personally or through witnesses, that they
The gravamen of the crime of rebellion is an armed public uprising against killed the deceased in furtherance of the resistance movement.
the government. By its very nature, rebellion is essentially a crime of
7 From the foregoing, it is plainly obvious that it is not enough that the overt
masses or multitudes involving crowd action, which cannot be confined acts of rebellion are duly proven. Both purpose and overt acts are essential
components of the crime. With either of these elements wanting, the crime
of rebellion legally does not exist. In fact, even in cases where the act [I]ntent or motive is a decisive factor. If Senator Ponce Enrile is not charged with
complained of were committed simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion and he harbored or concealed Colonel Honasan simply because the latter
rebellion, if the killing, robbing, or etc., were accomplished for private is a friend and former associate, the motive for the act is completely different. But
purposes or profit, without any political motivation, it has been held that if the act is committed with political or social motives, that is in furtherance of
rebellion, then
the crime would be separately punishable as a common crime and would
not be absorbed by the crime rebellion. 11
______________
Clearly, political motive should be established before a person charged
with a common crime—alleging rebellion in order to 12 189 SCRA 573 (1990).
13 This decree penalizes persons who willfully obstructs or impedes the apprehension of suspects
and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases “by harboring and concealing” such suspects.
_____________ 14 Supra, note 12, at 580.
15 Id., at 581.
396
VOL. 250, NOVEMBER 29, 1995 397
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED People vs. Lovedioro
People vs. Lovedioro being punished separately.
lessen the possible imposable penalty—could benefit from the law’s It follows, therefore, that if no political motive is established and proved,
relatively benign attitude towards political crimes. Instructive in this the accused should be convicted of the common crime and not of rebellion.
regard is the case of Enrile v. Amin, where the prosecution sought to
12
In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an
charge Senator Juan Ponce Enrile with violation of P.D. No. 1829, for 13
organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of
allegedly harboring or concealing in his home Col. Gregorio Honasan in itself, suffice.
spite of the senator’s knowledge that Honasan might have committed a The similarity of some of the factual circumstances of People v. Ompad,
crime. This Court held, against the prosecution’s contention, that rebellion Jr., to the instant case is striking. Two witnesses, both former NPA
16
and violation of P.D. 1829 could be tried separately (on the principle that
14
recruits identified the accused Ompad, alias “Commander Brando,” a
rebellion is based on the Revised Penal Code while P.D. 1829 is a special known hitman of the NPA, as having led three other members of the NPA
law), that the act for which the senator was being charged, though in the liquidation of Dionilo Barlaan, a military informer, also in a rebel
punishable under a special law, was absorbed in the crime of rebellion being infested area. In spite of his notoriety as an NPA hitman, Ompad was
motivated by, and related to the acts for which he was charged in Enrile vs. merely charged with and convicted of murder, not rebellion because
Salazar (G.R. Nos. 92163 and 92164) a case decided on June 5, 1990. Ruling political motive was neither alleged nor proved.
in favor of Senator Enrile and holding that the prosecution for violation of As stated hereinabove, the burden of proof that the act committed was
P.D. No. 1829 cannot prosper because a separate prosecution for rebellion impelled by a political motive lies on the accused. Political motive must be
had already been filed and in fact decided, the Court said: alleged in the information. It must be established by clear and satisfactory
17
The attendant circumstances in the instant case, however constrain us to rule that evidence. In People v. Paz and Tica we held:
the theory of absorption in rebellion cases must not confine itself to common crimes That the killing was in pursuance of the Huk rebellion is a matter of mitigation or
but also to offenses under special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance of the defense that the accused has the burden of proving clearly and satisfactorily. The
political offense.15
lone uncorroborated assertion of appellant that his superiors told him of Dayrit
Noting the importance of purpose in cases of rebellion the court in Enrile being an informer, and his suspicion that he, was one such, is neither sufficient or
adequate to establish that the motivation for the killing was political, considering
vs. Amin further underscored that:
appellant’s obvious interest in testifying to that effect. 18
Similarly, in People v. Buco, the Court stressed that accused in that case
19 [In the case cited] the appellants, admittedly members of the NPA, clearly
failed to establish that the reason for the killing of their victim was to overcame the burden of proving motive or intent. It was
further or carry out rebellion. The evidence
_____________
______________ 20 Id.
21 221 SCRA 549 (1993).
16 233 SCRA 62 (1994). 22 Id., at 558.
17 People v. Hernandez, supra at pp. 536 and 551. 23 Rollo, p. 101.
398
VOL. 250, NOVEMBER 29, 1995 399
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED People vs. Lovedioro
People vs. Lovedioro shown that the political motivation for the killing of the victim was the fact that
Ragaul was suspected as an informer for the PC. The perpetrators even left a letter
adduced by the defense therein simply showed that appellant Francisco card, a drawing on the body of Ragaul as a warning to others not to follow his
Buco was ordered by Tomas Calma, alias “Commander Sol” to kill example. It is entirely different in the case at bar where the evidence for the
municipal mayor Conrado G. Dizon. However, the evidence likewise showed appellant merely contains self-serving assertions and denials not substantial
that Calma was induced by an acquaintance, a civilian, to order the killing enough as an indicia of political motivation in the killing of victim SPO3 Jesus
on account of private differences over a ninety (90) hectare piece of land. Lucilo. 24
The court attributed no political motive for the killing, though committed In the case at bench, the appellant, assisted by counsel, admitted in his
by known members of the Hukbalahap movement. 20
extrajudicial confession to having participated in the killing of Lucilo as
People v. Dasig has a factual milieu almost similar to the instant case.
21
follows:
There, the Court held that “the act of killing a police officer, knowing too Q What was that incident if any, please narrate?
well that the victim is a person in authority is a mere component or A July 27, 1992 at more or less 12:00 noon. I am at home,
ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of a rebellion.” three male person a certain alias ALWIN, ALIAS
In Dasig the Court however noted that the accused, who was charged with SAMUEL and the other one unknown to me, fetched me
murder, not only admitted his membership with the NPA but also executed and told me to go with them, so I asked them where, Alwin
an extrajudicial confession to the effect that he was a member of an NPA handed me a hand gun and same he stopped/call a
“sparrow unit,” a fact to which even the Solicitor General, in his brief passenger jeepney and told me board on said jeepney. (sic)
therein was in agreement. The Solicitor General’s brief in Dasig which this Q Please continue.
Court favorably quoted, noted that: A Upon reaching Daraga, Albay fronting Petron Gasoline
[T]he sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the New People’s Army with the
Station, we alighted on said jeep, so we walk towards
objective of overthrowing the duly constituted government. It is therefore not hard
to comprehend that the killing of Pfc. Manatad was committed as a means to or in Daraga Bakery we stopped walking due to it is raining,
furtherance of the subversive ends of the NPA. 22
when the rain stopped we continue walking by using the
By contrast, the Solicitor General vigorously argues for a different result in road near the bakery. (sic)
the case at bench. He states that accusedappellant’s belated claims to Q When you reached Daraga bakery, as you have said in Q. 7
membership in the NPA were not only insubstantial but also self you used the road near the bakery where did you proceed?
serving, an averment to which, given a thorough review of the
23 A I am not familiar with that place, but I and my companion
circumstances of the case, we fully agree. He states: continue walking, at more or less 4:30 P.M. July 27, 1992
one of my companion told us as to quote in Bicol dialect, statements, did not contain any mention or allusion as to the involvement
to wit: ‘AMO NA YADI AN TINAMPO PALUWAS’ of the NPA in the death of SPO3 Lucilo. Even prosecution eyewitness
26
(This is the place towards the poblacion), so, I placed Nestor Armenta did not mention that NPA in his sworn statement of
myself just ahead of a small store, my three (3) October 19, 1992. 27
companions continue walking towards poblacion, later on a As the record would show, allegations relating to appellant’s
policeman sporting white T-shirt and a Khaki pant was membership in the NPA surfaced almost merely as an afterthought,
walking towards me, while the said policeman is nearly something which the defense merely picked up and followed through upon
approaching me, ALWIN shot the said policeman infront prosecution eyewitness Armenta’s testimony on cross-examination that he
of the small store, when the said policeman fell on the knew appellant to be a member of the NPA. Interestingly, however, in the
asphalted road, ALWIN took the same testimony, Armenta admitted that he was “forced” to pinpoint
appellant as an NPA member. The logical result, of course, was that
28
_____________
______________
Id.
24
Q Do you know the policeman that was killed by your Armenta’s testimony on appellant’s alleged membership in the NPA, the
companion? trial court correctly gave credence to his unflawed narration about how the
A I just came to know his name when I reached home and crime was committed. Such narration is even corroborated in its pertinent
30
heard it radio, that he is JESUS LUCILO. (sic) portions, except as to the identity of the gunwielder, by the testimony of the
Q What is your participation in the group? appellant himself.
A Look-out sir. In any case, appellant’s claim regarding the political color attending the
commission of the crime being a matter of defense, its viability depends on
Q I have nothing more to asked you what else, if there is
his sole and unsupported testimony. He testified that, upon the prodding of
any? (sic)
alias Alwin and alias Samuel, he joined the NPA because of the
A No more sir.25
appellant ever mention that he was a member of the New People’s Army. A
what the “offense” was. Appellant claimed that he had been a member of
thorough reading of the same reveals nothing which would suggest that the
the NPA for five months before the shooting incident. 33
explanation as to what contribution the killing would have made towards look-out, the testimony of one witness, his blood relative, free from any
the achievement of the NPA’s subversive aims. SPO3 Jesus Lucilo, a mere signs of impropriety or falsehood, was sufficient to convict the
policeman, was never alleged to be an informer. No acts of his were accused. Moreover, neither may lack of motive be availing to exculpate the
38
specifically shown to have offended the NPA. Against appellant’s attempts appellant. Lack or absence of motive for committing a crime does not
to shade his participation in the killing with a political color, the evidence preclude conviction, there being a reliable eyewitness who fully and
on record leaves the impression that appellant’s bare allegations of satisfactorily identified appellant as the perpetrator of the felony. In the 39
membership in the NPA was conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty case at bench, the
imposable upon him. It is of judicial notice that in many NPA infested
_____________
areas, crimes have been all-too-quickly attributed to the furtherance of an
ideology or under the cloak of political color for the purpose of mitigating 35 202 SCRA 405, 419 (1991).
the imposable penalty 36 Although appellant stated in his extrajudicial confession that his companion also asported
Lucilo’s service firearm, a fact which Armenta corroborated in court, robbery was not alleged
______________ in the information.
37 People v. Ompad, supra, note 16, at 67; People v. Mendoza, 233 SCRA 108 (1994); People
29 People v. Flores, 239 SCRA 83 (1994). v. Quetua, 222 SCRA 357 (1993).
38 People v. Abapo, G.R. Nos. 93632-33, December 28, 1994, 239 SCRA 469, 479.
30 People v. Nitcha, 240 SCRA 283, 288-289 (1995).
31 TSN, May 18, 1993, pp. 4-5. 39 People v. Gamiao, G.R. No. 91492, January 19, 1995, 240 SCRA 254, 264; People v.
32 Id., p. 7. Layam, G.R. No. 102308, July 25, 1994, 234, 424, 432.
33 Id., pp. 12-14. 403
34 Rollo, p. 99.
VOL. 250, NOVEMBER 29, 1995 403
402
People vs. Lovedioro
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
strength of the prosecution’s case was furthermore bolstered by accused-
People vs. Lovedioro
appellant’s admission in open court that he and the eyewitness, his own
when in fact they are no more than ordinary crimes perpetrated by common uncle, bore no grudges against each other. 40
criminals. In Baylosis v. Chavez, Jr., Chief Justice Narvasa aptly observed: Finally, treachery was adequately proved in the court below. The attack
The existence of rebellious groups in our society today, and of numerous bandits,
delivered by appellant was sudden, and without warning of any kind. The 41
——o0o——
______________
occupied Villamor Air Base, while the Scout Rangers took over the In Criminal Case No. Q-90-11756, Rolando de Gracia, Chito Henson,
Headquarters of the Philippine Army, the Army Operations Center, and Lamberto Bicus, Rodolfo Tor and several John Does were charged with
Channel 4, the government television station. Also, some elements of the attempted homicide allegedly committed on December 1, 1989 in Quezon
Philippine Army coming from Fort Magsaysay occupied the Greenhills City upon the person of Crispin Sagario who was shot and hit on the right
Shopping Center in San Juan, Metro Manila. 1
thigh.
Accused-appellant Rolando de Gracia was charged in two separate Appellant was convicted for illegal possession of firearms in furtherance
informations for illegal possession of ammunition and explosives in of rebellion, but was acquitted of attempted homicide.
furtherance of rebellion, and for attempted homicide, docketed as Criminal During the arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.
Cases Nos. Q-90-11755 and Q-90-11756, respectively, which were tried However, he admitted that he is not authorized to possess any firearms,
jointly by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103. ammunition and/or explosive. The parties
3
_______________
_______________
1 TSN, August 28, 1990, 40-42.
2Original Record, 1. bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different calibers,
Ibid., 52.
and “molotov” bombs
3
722
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED _______________
People vs. De Gracia
likewise stipulated that there was a rebellion during the period from 4Ibid., 97.
723
November 30 up to December 9, 1989. 4
intent and intent to possess. While mere possession, without criminal Then, he alternatively contended that his act of guarding the explosives for
intent, is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm, it and in behalf of Col. Matillano does not constitute illegal possession thereof
must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an intent to because there was no intent on his part to possess the same, since he was
possess on the part of the accused. Such intent to possess is, however,
11
merely employed as an errand boy of Col. Matillano. His pretension of
without regard to any other criminal or felonious intent which the accused impersonal or indifferent material possession does not and cannot inspire
may have harbored in possessing the firearm. Criminal intent here refers credence.
to the intention of the accused to commit an offense with the use of an Animus possidendi is a state of mind which may be determined on a case
unlicensed firearm. This is not important in convicting a person under to case basis, taking into consideration the prior and coetaneous acts of the
accused and the surrounding circumstances. What exists in the realm of It is admitted that the military operatives who raided the Eurocar Sales
thought is often disclosed in the range of action. It is not controverted that Office were not armed with a search warrant at that time. The raid was
15
appellant De Gracia is a former soldier, having served with the Philippine actually precipitated by intelligence reports that said office was being used
Constabulary prior to his separation from the service for going on absence as headquarters by the RAM. Prior to the raid, there was a surveillance
16
12 People vs. Estoista, supra, Fn. 7. is definitely not an armory or arsenal which are the usual depositories for
13 TSN, November 22, 1990, 12. explosives
14 Ibid., December 6, 1990, 36.
728 _______________
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
15 Ibid., November 22, 1990, 33.
People vs. De Gracia 16 Ibid., October 2, 1990, 21-22.
which were confiscated by the military from his possession. As a former 17 Ibid., id., November 22, 1990, 8.
soldier, it would be absurd for him not to know anything about the 729
dangerous uses and power of these weapons. A fortiori, he cannot feign VOL. 233, JULY 6, 1994 729
ignorance on the import of having in his possession such a large quantity of People vs. De Gracia
explosives and ammunition. Furthermore, the place where the explosives and ammunition. It is primarily and solely engaged in the sale of
were found is not a military camp or office, nor one where such items can automobiles. The presence of an unusual quantity of high-powered firearms
ordinarily but lawfully be stored, as in a gun store, an arsenal or armory. and explosives could not be justifiably or even colorably explained. In
Even an ordinarily prudent man would be put on guard and be suspicious addition, there was general chaos and disorder at that time because of
if he finds articles of this nature in a place intended to carry out the simultaneous and intense firing within the vicinity of the office and in the
business of selling cars and which has nothing to do at all, directly or nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel forces. The 18
indirectly, with the trade of firearms and ammunition. courts in the surrounding areas were obviously closed and, for that matter,
On the basis of the foregoing disquisition, it is apparent, and we so hold, the building and houses therein were deserted.
that appellant De Gracia actually intended to possess the articles Under the foregoing circumstances, it is our considered opinion that the
confiscated from his person. instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a
II. The next question that may be asked is whether or not there was a warrantless search. In the first place, the military operatives, taking into
valid search and seizure in this case. While the matter has not been account the facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable ground to believe
squarely put in issue, we deem it our bounden duty, in light of advertence that a crime was being committed. There was consequently more than
thereto by the parties, to delve into the legality of the warrantless search sufficient probable cause to warrant their action. Furthermore, under the
conducted by the raiding team, considering the gravity of the offense for situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to apply for
which herein appellant stands to be convicted and the penalty sought to be and secure a search warrant from the courts. The trial judge himself
imposed. manifested that on December 5, 1989 when the raid was conducted, his
court was closed. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a
19 acting suspiciously and pointed out by an informer was apprehended and searched
search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with. by the police authorities. It was held that when faced with on-the-spot information,
The view that we here take is in consonance with our doctrinal ruling the police officers had to act quickly and there was no time to secure a search
which was amply explained in People vs. Malmstedt and bears reiteration:
20
warrant.
“While it is true that the NARCOM officers were not armed with a search warrant “It must be observed that, at first, the NARCOM officers merely conducted a
when the search was made over the personal effects of accused, however, under routine check of the bus (where accused was riding) and the passengers therein,
the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said officers and no extensive search was initially made. It was only when one of the officers
to believe that accused was then and there committing a crime. noticed a bulge on the waist of accused, during the course of the inspection, that
“Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances which would accused was required to present his passport. The failure of accused to present his
lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been identification papers, when ordered to do so, only managed to arouse the suspicion
committed, and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the of the officer that accused was trying to hide his identity. For is it not a regular
place sought to be searched. The required probable cause that will justify a norm for an innocent man, who has nothing to hide from the authorities, to readily
warrantless search and present his identification papers when required to do so?
“The receipt of information by NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagada
_______________ had prohibited drugs in his possession, plus the suspicious failure of the accused
to produce his passport, taken together as a whole, led the NARCOM officers to
18 Ibid., id., October 2, 1990, 16-17. reasonably believe that the accused was trying to hide something illegal from the
19 Ibid., November 29, 1990, 58. authorities. From these circumstances arose a probable cause which justified the
20 G.R. No. 91107, June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 401.
730 warrantless search that was made on the personal effects of the accused. In other
731
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 233, JULY 6, 1994 731
People vs. De Gracia
People vs. De Gracia
seizure is not determined by any fixed formula but is resolved according to the
words, the acts of the NARCOM officers in requiring the accused to open his pouch
facts of each case.
bag and in opening one of the wrapped objects found inside said bag (which was
“Warrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been declared by
discovered to contain hashish) as well as the two (2) teddy bears with hashish
this Court as valid, because of existence of probable cause, where the smell of
stuffed inside them, were prompted by accused’s own attempt to hide his identity
marijuana emanated from a plastic bag owned by the accused, or where the
by refusing to present his passport, and by the information received by the
accused was acting suspiciously, and attempted to flee.
NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs in his
“Aside from the persistent reports received by the NARCOM that vehicles
possession. To deprive the NARCOM agents of the ability and facility to act
coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs,
accordingly, including, to search even without warrant, in the light of such
their Commanding Officer also received information that a Caucasian coming from
circumstances, would be to sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in law
Sagada on that particular day had prohibited drugs in his possession. Said
enforcement, to the detriment of society.”
information was received by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM the very same
morning that accused came down by bus from Sagada on his way to Baguio City. In addition, we find the principle enunciated in Umil, et al. vs. Ramos, et
“When NARCOM received the information, a few hours before the al., applicable, by analogy, to the present case:
21
apprehension of herein accused, that a Caucasian travelling from Sagada to “The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armed
Baguio City was carrying with him prohibited drugs, there was no time to obtain elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is
a search warrant. In the Tangliben case, the police authorities conducted a more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, to quell the
surveillance at the Victory Liner Terminal located at Bgy. San Nicolas, San rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a
Fernando, Pampanga, against persons engaged in the traffic of dangerous drugs, statutory offense. The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the
based on information supplied by some informers. Accused Tangliben who was prosecution of offenses which requires the determination by a judge of the
existence of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest and No. 1866 which, in law, is distinct from the crime of rebellion punished
the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. Obviously the absence of a judicial under Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code. These are two
warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt separate statutes penalizing different offenses with discrete penalties. The
acts of violence against government forces, or any other milder acts but really in Revised Penal Code treats rebellion as a crime apart from murder,
pursuance of the rebellious movement. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by
homicide, arson, or other offenses, such as illegal possession of firearms,
the exigencies of the situation that involves the very survival of society and its
that might conceivably be committed in the course of a rebellion.
government and duly constituted authorities. If killing and other acts of violence
against the rebels find justification in the exigencies of armed hostilities which Presidential Decree No. 1866 defines and punishes, as a specific offense, the
(are) of the essence of waging a rebellion or insurrection, most assuredly so in case crime of illegal possession of firearms committed in the course or as part of
of invasion, merely seizing their persons and detaining them while any of these a rebellion. 22
contingencies continues cannot be less justified.” As a matter of fact, in one case involving the constitutionality of Section
III. As earlier stated, it was stipulated and admitted by both parties that 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, the Court has explained that said
from November 30, 1989 up to and until December 9, 1989, there was a provision of the law will not be invalidated by the mere fact that the same
rebellion. Ergo, our next inquiry is whether or not appellant’s possession of act is penalized under two different statutes with different penalties, even
the firearms, explosives and ammunition seized and recovered from him if considered highly advantageous to the prosecution and onerous to the
was for the purpose accused. It follows that, subject to the presence of the requisite elements
23
732 Baylosis, et al. vs. Chavez, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 95136, October 3, 1991, 202 SCRA 405.
22
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Misolas vs. Panga, etc. et al., G.R. No. 83341, January 30, 1990, 181 SCRA 648.
23
733
People vs. De Gracia
VOL. 233, JULY 6, 1994 733
and in furtherance of rebellion.
The trial court found accused guilty of illegal possession of firearms in People vs. De Gracia
furtherance of rebellion pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 135 of the furtherance of rebellion may give rise to separate prosecutions for a
Revised Penal Code which states that “any person merely participating or violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, and also a violation
executing the command of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code on rebellion. Double
of prision mayor in its minimum period.” The court below held that jeopardy in this case cannot be invoked because the first is an offense
appellant De Gracia, who had been servicing the personal needs of Col. punished by a special law while the second is a felony punished by the
Matillano (whose active armed opposition against the Government, Revised Penal Code, with variant elements.
24
particularly at the Camelot Hotel, was well known), is guilty of the act of It was a legal malapropism for the lower court to interject the aforestated
guarding the explosives and “molotov” bombs for and in behalf of the latter. provision of the Revised Penal Code in this prosecution for a crime under a
We accept this finding of the lower court. special law. Consequently, there is no basis for its recommendation for
The above provision of the law was, however, erroneously and executive clemency in favor of appellant De Gracia after he shall have
improperly used by the court below as a basis in determining the degree of served a jail term of five years with good behavior. In any event, this is a
liability of appellant and the penalty to be imposed on him. It must be made matter within the exclusive prerogative of the President whose decision
clear that appellant is charged with the qualified offense of illegal thereon should be insulated against any tenuous importunity.
possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion under Presidential Decree
Withal, we are duly convinced that the firearms, explosives and the supposed basis thereof are hereby DELETED, with costs against
ammunition confiscated from appellant De Gracia were illegally possessed accused-appellant.
by him in furtherance of the rebellion then admittedly existing at that time. SO ORDERED.
In the words of the court a quo: Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Padilla, Puno and Mendoza,
“2. the nature and quantity of the items—5 bundles of C-4 dynamites, 6 cartons of JJ., concur.
M-16 ammo and 100 bottles of molotov bombs indicate that the reports received Impugned judgment affirmed.
by the military that the Eurocar Sales Building was being used by the rebels was Notes.—Mere suspicion of subversion is never a legal reason for
not without basis. Those items are clearly not for one’s personal defense. They are summary execution (People vs. De la Cruz, 227 SCRA 278 [1993]).
for offensive operations. De Gracia admitted that per instruction of Col. Matillano
Every judge should strictly follow the procedure for the issuance of
he went down to Eurocar Sales Building from Antipolo to stay guard there.
warrants of arrest (Ancog vs. Tan, 227 SCRA 137 [1993]).
“His manifestation of innocence of those items and what he has been guarding
in that office is not credible for: (a) he was a former military personnel; (b) at the
——o0o——
birthday party of Col. Matillano on November 30, 1989 many soldiers and ex-
soldiers were present which self-evidently discloses that De Gracia, in the _______________
company of his boss, was still very much at home and constantly in touch with
soldiers and the armed rebellion of November 30, 1989 to December 8 or 9, 1989 Original Record, 149-150.
25
was a military coup d’etat; (c) it appears that he is the only person tasked with 735
caretaking (sic) there in the Matillano office, which shows that he is a highly © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
trusted right-hand man of Col. Matillano; and (d) as
_______________
24 Cf. People vs. Tiozon, G.R. No. 89823, June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 368.
734
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. De Gracia
heretofore discussed, de Gracia was earlier seen with some men who fired upon a
car of the AFP intelligence agents.” 25
Presidential Decree No. 1866 imposes the death penalty where the illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition is committed in furtherance of
rebellion. At the time the offense charged in this case was committed under
the governance of that law, the imposition of the death penalty was
proscribed by the Constitution. Consequently, appellant De Gracia could
only be sentenced to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua which was
correctly meted out by the trial court, albeit with an erroneous recom-
mendation in connection therewith.
WHEREFORE, the impugned judgment of the trial court is hereby
AFFIRMED, but its recommendation therein for executive clemency and
VOL. 221, APRIL 28, 1993 549 550
the court of justice? We do not find any reason to doubt the factual findings and conclusions of
A Yes. He was willing to get me as counsel in that the trial court that the extra-judicial confession of the appellant was
investigation. voluntarily made. Said the trial court:
Q After he was informed of his constitutional rights what “The prosecution’s evidence clearly shows that herein accused during his
555 investigation was properly informed and appraised of his constitutional right to
VOL. 555 remain silent and to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his
221, own choice but since at that time he did not signify his intention to retain a lawyer
of his own choice, so he was provided with a lawyer in the person of Atty. Fortunato
APRIL
Parawan of the Creer Law Office who was available at that time, to assist him
28, 1993 during the custodial investigation conducted by T/Sgt. Ariston L. Ira at his
People vs. Dasig hospital bed at Camp Lapulapu Army Station Hospital, Cebu City where he was
transpired next? confined after being hit on his upper left arm and in fact, Atty. Parawan only
A The investigation started. consented to assist herein accused after the latter has answered in the affirmative
Q Were you present at the very start of that to his question as to whether he would be amenable to be assisted by him as his
investigation? counsel of his own choice.
“The prosecution’s evidence further show that Atty. Fortunato Parawan after
A Yes, I was present from the start until it was
consenting to be his counsel was with him when his extra-judicial confession or
finished. sworn statement was subscribed and sworn
Q Was that reduced to writing?
A Yes. _______________
x x x. 3 TSN, p. 5-8, March 8, 1990.
Q You said you were present during the entire 556
investigation. 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Were the answers of the accused, Rodrigo Dasig, People vs. Dasig
to the questions propounded by the Investigator to by him before Assistant City Fiscal Salvador O. Solima of the Cebu City Fiscal’s
voluntary? Office who, before accused has actually affixed his signature on each and every
A Yes, they are voluntary. pages of his extra-judicial confession, has informed him (accused) of his
Q After the investigation was finished what constitutional rights and has explained the contents of his extra-judicial
transpired next? confession.
“Moreover, per certification made by Assistant City Fiscal Salvador O. Solima Appellant relies on the much abused claim that his extrajudicial confession
of the Cebu City Fiscal’s Office, clearly shows that accused in executing the same was legally defective and hence, should not have been admitted and
has done so voluntarily and after having understood the contents thereof which is considered by the trial judge. This accusation is whimsical and obviously a
in the Visayan language, a language known to him, found on the last page thereof mere refuge for appellant’s turnabout. In an attempt to avoid criminal
now marked as Exhibit “J-7”B.”
liability, he now questions the integrity of the police authorities and the
“Furthermore, this sworn statement of accused Dasig is collaborated by the
reputation of the lawyer who stood by him during the investigation.
sworn statement of his co-accused Edwin Nuñez dated August 18, 1987 which is
sworn and subscribed to before City Fiscal Jopelinito Pareja of the City Fiscal’s Indubitably established and now a matter of record is the fact that
Office of Cebu City.” 4
appellant was assisted by Atty. Parawan who even signed the former’s
The settled jurisprudence on the matter is that a confession is admissible sworn declarations. It is likewise a matter of record that before appellant
until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result of made his extra-judicial confession, he was first asked if he was amenable to
violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency. The case 5
the services of Atty. Parawan to which query he answered affirmatively.
of People of the Philippines v. Parojinog is four square to the case at bar. Finally, the alleged use of force and intimidation has not been
In Parojinog this court had this to say: substantiated by evidence other than his self-serving testimony. As has
“Anent his claim that Atty. Fuentes was not his choice, Section 12 (1) of Article III been pointed out, such allegation is another naive effort of appellant to back
of the 1987 Constitution provides: track from his prior voluntary admission of guilt. Evidently, the taking of
‘Sec. 12(1).—Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have his extra-judicial confession was done with regularity and legality. 7
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and Nevertheless, there is merit in appellant’s argument that granting he is
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services
guilty, what he committed was a political crime of simple rebellion, and
of counsel he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel.’ hence he should not be convicted of murder with direct assault.
“It is very clear from the aforequoted provision that a person under The Solicitor General agrees with the accused-appellant on this point as
investigation for the commission of an offense may choose his own counsel but if manifested in the People’s brief, which We quote:
he cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. While the “However, as correctly pointed by appellant, the lower court erroneously convicted
initial choice of the lawyer in the latter case is naturally lodged in the police him of Murder with Assault Upon a Person in Authority, instead of Rebellion.
investigators, the accused really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel “Rebellion is committed by taking up arms against the govern-
chosen for him and ask
_______________
_______________
6 Id. at p. 680.
4 Decision, p. 12-13.
7 People v. Quijano, G.R. No. 84361, 197 SCRA 761.
5 People v. Parojinog, G.R. No. 95860, 203 SCRA 673. 558
557 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 221, APRIL 28, 1993 557 People vs. Dasig
People vs. Dasig ment, among other means. (Article 135, Revised Penal Code). In this case,
for another one. In the instant case, the records show that no objection was voiced appellant not only confessed voluntarily his membership with the sparrow unit
by the accused throughout the entire proceedings of the investigation and but also his participation and that of his group in the killing of Pfc. Manatad while
afterwards when he subscribed to its veracity before City Prosecutor Luzminda V. manning the traffic in Mandaue City in the afternoon of August 4, 1987. It is of
Uy. Thus, he apparently acquiesced to the choice of the investigators. He judicial notice that the sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the New People’s
complained for the first time that Atty. Fuentes was not his choice only during Army with the objective of overthrowing the duly constituted government. It is
trial. Thus it was too late.” 6 therefore not hard to comprehend that the killing of Pfc. Manatad was committed
as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends of the NPA. Consequently, Premises considered, We uphold the findings of the trial court that the
appellant is liable for the crime of rebellion, not murder with direct assault upon extra-judicial confession was legally obtained. However, appellant being a
a person in authority.” 8
confessed member of the sparrow unit, the liquidation squad of the New
The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast movement of men People’s Army whose objective is to overthrow the duly constituted
and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in furtherance of government, the crime committed is simple rebellion and not murder with
rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in one single direct assault.
crime of rebellion. The act of killing a police officer, knowing too well that
9
WHEREFORE, accused Rogelio Dasig is found guilty of participating in
the victim is a person in authority is a mere component or ingredient of an act of rebellion beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to
rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot be made a suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor, and
basis of a separate charge. to pay the heirs of Pfc. Redempto Manatad, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
Moreover, in the case of People v. Mangallan We held that where the
10
SO ORDERED.
accused who was charged with murder admitted his membership with the Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.
NPA and the killing of a suspected PC informer, the crime committed is not Accused-appellant found guilty of rebellion.
murder but rebellion punishable under Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Note.—Confessions extracted by force are not admissible. Judges should
Penal Code. look deeper into the validity of challenged confessions (People
As to the proper imposable penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is vs. Opida, 142 SCRA 295).
not applicable to persons convicted of rebellion (Sec. 2, R.A. 4203), contrary
to the insinuation of the Solicitor General. Article 135 of the Revised Penal ——o0o——
Code imposes the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding
P20,000.00 to any person who promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion. 560
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
However, in the case at bar, there is no evidence to prove that appellant
Dasig headed the crime committed. As a matter of fact he was not
specifically pinpointed by Pfc. Catamora as the person giving instructions
to the group which attacked Pfc. Manatad.
Appellant merely participated in committing the act, or just
_______________
559
VOL. 221, APRIL 28, 1993 559
People vs. Dasig
executed the command of an unknown leader. Hence, he should be made to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor. For
the resulting death, appellant is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Pfc.
Manatad FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity.
VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 311 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF
Umil vs. Ramos NARCISO B. NAZARENO. ALFREDO NAZARENO, petitioner, vs. THE
G.R. No. 81567. July 9, 1990.
* STATION COMMANDER OF THE MUNTINGLUPA POLICE STATION,
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF Muntinglupa, Metro Manila, P/SGT. JACINTO MEDINA, P/SGT. ELADIO
ROBERTO UMIL, ROLANDO DURAL and RENATO VILLANUEVA. TAGLE, P/SGT. LEVI SOLEDAD, and P/SGT. MAURO AROJADO,
MANOLITA O. UMIL, and NICANOR P. DURAL, FELICITAS V. SESE, respondents.
petitioners, vs. FIDEL V. RAMOS, MAJ. GEN. RENATO DE VILLA, Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Arrests; Arrest of a person without a
BRIG. GEN. RAMON MONTANO, BRIG. GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, warrant of arrest or previous complaint is recognized in law.—The arrest of a
person without a warrant of arrest or previous complaint is recognized in law. The
respondents.
occasions or instances when such an arrest may be effected are clearly spelled out
G.R. Nos. 84581-82. July 9, 1990. *
in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
AMELIA ROQUE and WILFREDO BUENAOBRA, petitioners, vs. GEN. Same; Same; Same; Arrest without a warrant is justified when the person
RENATO DE VILLA and GEN. RAMON MONTANO, respondents. arrested is caught in flagranti delicto.—An arrest without a warrant of arrest,
G.R. Nos. 84583-84. July 9, 1990. *
under Section 5 paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ATTY. amended, is justified when the person arrested is caught in flagranti delicto, viz.,
DOMINGO T. ANONUEVO and RAMON CASIPLE. DOMINGO T. in the act of committing an offense; or when an offense has just been committed
ANONUEVO and RAMON CASIPLE, petitioners, vs. HON. and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of the facts indicating
FIDEL V. RAMOS, GEN. RENATO S. DE VILLA, COL. EVARISTO that the person arrested has committed it.
CARINO, LT. COL. REX D. PIAD, T/SGT. CONRADO DE TORRES, Same; Same; Same; Same; Rationale behind lawful arrests without warrant
S/SGT. ARNOLD DURIAN, and Commanding Officer, PC-INP Detention stated in the case of People vs. Kagui Malasugui.—The rationale behind lawful
arrests, without warrant, was stated by this Court in the case of People vs. Kagui
Center, Camp Crame, Quezon City, respondents.
Malasugui thus: “To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and
G.R. No. 83162. July 9, 1990.
*
searched for the evidence and tokens of his crime without a warrant, would be to
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF leave society, to a large extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and
VICKY A. OCAYA AND DANNY RIVERA. VIRGILIO A. OCAYA, the most depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in many instances.”
petitioner, vs. BRIG. GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, COL. HERCULES Same; Same; Same; Same; Petitioners had freshly committed or were actually
CATALUNA, COL. NESTOR MARIANO, respondents. committing an offense when apprehended so that their arrests without a warrant
G.R. No. 85727. July 9, 1990.
* were clearly justified.—The record of the instant cases would show that the
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS persons in whose behalf these
313
_______________ VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 313
Umil vs. Ramos
*EN BANC.
312 petitions for habeas corpus have been filed, had freshly committed or were
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED actually committing an offense, when apprehended, so that their arrests without
a warrant were clearly justified, and that they are, further, detained by virtue of
Umil vs. Ramos valid informations filed against them in court.
OF: DEOGRACIAS ESPIRITU, petitioner, vs. BRIG. GEN. ALFREDO S. Criminal Law; Habeas Corpus; Subversion; The crimes of rebellion,
LIM, COL. RICARDO REYES, respondents. subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses
G.R. No. 86332. July 9, 1990.* committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct
assaults against the State are in the nature of continuing crimes.—However,
Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the New Peoples Army (NPA), deprivation of individual liberty should be promptly brought to the courts for their
an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the immediate scrutiny and disposition.
arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was
committing an offense when arrested. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, CRUZ, J., Dissenting:
conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed
in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against Fact that subversion is a continuing offense to justify the arrest without
the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes. warrant of any person at any time as long as the authorities say he has
Same; Same; If a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody been placed under surveillance on suspicion of the offense is a dangerous
of an officer under process issued by a court or judge and that the court or judge doctrine.
had jurisdiction to issue the process or make the order or if such person is charged
before any court, the writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed.—It is to be noted FELICIANO, J., Concurring:
that, in all the petitions here considered, criminal charges have been filed in the
proper courts against the petitioners. The rule is, that if a person alleged to be There is no obstacle to a careful examination of the doctrine of continuing
restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a crimes as applied to such offenses as subversion and inciting to sedition and
court or judge, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process or
possibly other offenses in some future case where that issue is raised
make the order, or if such person is charged before any court, the writ of habeas
squarely and is unavoidable.
corpus will not be allowed.
Same; Same; No compelling reason to abandon the doctrine laid down in the
SARMIENTO, J., Dissenting:
case of Ilagan vs. Enrile; As the court stated in Morales Jr. vs. Enrile, in all
petitions for habeas corpus the court must inquire into every phase and aspect of
Warrantless arrest may be exercised only in the most urgent cases and
petitioner’s detention.—We find, however, no compelling reason to abandon the
said doctrine. It is based upon express provision of the Rules of Court and the when the guilt of an offender is plain and evident.
exigencies served by the law. The fears expressed by the petitioners are not really
unremediable. As the Court sees it, re-examination or reappraisal, with a view to CORTÉS, J., Concurring:
its abandonment, of the Ilagan case doctrine is not the answer. The answer and
the better practice would be, not to limit the function of habeas corpus to a mere I join Mr. Justice Feliciano in his separate concurring statement.
inquiry as to whether or not the court which issued the process, judgment or order
or of commitment or PETITIONS for Habeas Corpus.
314
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Umil vs. Ramos Efren H. Mercado for petitioners in G.R. No. 81567.
before whom the detained person is charged, had jurisdiction or not to issue Ricardo C. Valmonte for petitioners in G.R. Nos. 84581-82.
the process, judgment or order or to take cognizance of the case, but rather, as the Ramon S. Esguerra, Barbara Anne C. Migallos and Agripino G.
Court itself states in Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, “in all petitions for habeas corpus the Morga for petitioners in G.R. Nos. 84583-84.
court must inquire into every phase and aspect of petitioner’s detention—from the 315
moment petitioner was taken into custody up to the moment the court passes upon VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 315
the merits of the petition:” and “only after such a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself Umil vs. Ramos
that the due process clause of our Constitution has in fact been satisfied.” This is Efren H. Mercado for petitioner in G.R. No. 83162.
exactly what the Court has done in the petitions at bar. This is what should Banzuela, Flores, Miralles, Raneses, Sy, Taquio & Associates for
henceforth be done in all future cases of habeas corpus. In short, all cases involving petitioner in G.R. No. 85727.
Josefina G. Campbell-Castillo for petitioners in G.R. No. 86332. 1. personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
The Solicitor General for the respondents. committed it; and
2. (c)When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
PER CURIAM: penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
These are eight (8) petitions for habeas corpus filed before the Court, which transferred from one confinement to another.
have been consolidated because of the similarity of issues raised, praying
for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, ordering the respective In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested
respondents to produce the bodies of the persons named therein and to without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail,
and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.”
explain why they should not be set at liberty without further delay.
An arrest without a warrant of arrest, under Section 5 paragraphs (a) and
In their respective Returns, the respondents uniformly assert that the
(b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is justified when the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is not available to the petitioners as
person arrested is caught in flagranti delicto, viz., in the act of committing
they have been legally arrested and are detained by virtue of valid
an offense; or when an offense has just been committed and the person
informationsfiled in court against them.
making the arrest has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the
The petitioners counter that their detention is unlawful as their arrests
person arrested has committed it. The rationale behind lawful arrests,
were made without warrant and, that no preliminary investigation was
without warrant, was stated by this Court in the case of People vs. Kagui
first conducted, so that the informations filed against them are null and
Malasugui thus:
void.
1
“To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the
The Court has carefully reviewed the contentions of the parties in their evidence and tokens of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave society, to
respective pleadings, and it finds that the persons detained have not been a large extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most
illegally arrested nor arbitrarily deprived of their constitutional right to depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in many instances.”
liberty, and that the circumstances attending these cases do not warrant The record of the instant cases would show that the persons in whose behalf
their release on habeas corpus. these petitions for habeas corpus have been filed, had freshly committed or
The arrest of a person without a warrant of arrest or previous complaint were actually committing an offense, when apprehended, so that their
is recognized in law. The occasions or instances when such an arrest may arrests without a warrant were clearly justified, and that they are, further,
be effected are clearly spelled out in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of detained by virtue of valid informations filed against them in court.
Court, as amended, which provides: A brief narration of the facts and events surrounding each of the eight
“Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or a private person (8) petitions is in order.
may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
_______________
1. (a)When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; 163 Phil. 221.
2. (b)When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has 317
VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 317
316 Umil vs. Ramos
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Umil vs. Ramos I
In G.R. No. 81567 (Umil vs. Ramos), the record shows that, on 1 February been filed against them, and they were accordingly released. The petition
1988, the Regional Intelligence Operations Unit of the Capital Command for habeas corpus, insofar as Umiland Villanueva are concerned, is now
(RIOU-CAPCOM) received confidential information about a member of the moot and academic and is accordingly dismissed, since the writ of habeas
NPA Sparrow Unit (liquidation squad) being treated for a gunshot wound corpus does not lie in favor of an accused in a criminal case who has been
at the St. Agnes Hospital in Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City. Upon released on bail. 2
verification, it was found that the wounded person, who was listed in the As to Rolando Dural, it clearly appears that he was not arrested while
hospital records as Ronnie Javelon, is actually Rolando Dural, a member of in the act of shooting the two (2) CAPCOM soldiers aforementioned. Nor
the NPA liquidation squad, responsible for the killing of two (2) CAPCOM was he arrested just after the commission of the said offense for his arrest
soldiers the day before, or on 31 January 1988, in Macanining Street, came a day after the said shooting incident. Seemingly, his arrest without
Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural warrant is unjustified.
was transferred to the Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM, for However, Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the New
security reasons. While confined thereat, or on 4 February 1988, Rolando Peoples Army (NPA), an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion
Dural was positively identified by eyewitnesses as the gunman who went being a continuing offense, the arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is
on top of the hood of the CAPCOM mobile patrol car, and fired at the two justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when arrested.
(2) CAPCOM soldiers seated inside the car identified as T/Sgt. Carlos Pabon The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such
and CIC Renato Manligot. crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in
As a consequence of this positive identification, Rolando Dural was connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in
referred to the Caloocan City Fiscal who conducted an inquest and the nature of continuing crimes. As stated by the Court in an earlier case:
thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City an “From the facts as above-narrated, the claim of the petitioners that they were
information charging Rolando Dural alias Ronnie Javelon with the crime of initially arrested illegally is, therefore, without basis in law and in fact. The crimes
“Double Murder with Assault Upon Agents of Persons in Authority.” The of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such
case was docketed therein as Criminal Case No. C-30112 and no bail was crimes, and other crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance, on the
occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith under Presidential
recommended. On 15 February 1988, the information was amended to
Proclamation No. 2045, are all in the nature of continuing offenses which set them
include, as defendant, Bernardo Itucal, Jr. who, at the filing of the original
apart from the common offenses, aside from their essentially involving a massive
information, was still unidentified. conspiracy of nationwide magnitude. Clearly then, the arrest of the herein
Meanwhile, on 6 February 1988, a petition for habeas corpus was filed detainees was well within the bounds of the law and existing jurisprudence in our
with this Court on behalf of Roberto Umil, Rolando Dural, and Renato jurisdiction.
Villanueva. The Court issued the writ of habeas corpus on 9 February 1988 2. The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armed
and the respondents filed a Return of the Writ on 12 February 1988. elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is
Thereafter, the parties were heard on 15 February 1988. more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, to quell the
On 26 February 1988, however, Roberto Umil and Renato rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a
Villanueva posted bail before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City where statutory offense. The
charges for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act had _______________
318
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 2 Zacarias vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-25899, November 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 728.
Umil vs. Ramos 319
VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 319
Umil vs. Ramos II
arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of offenses
which requires the determination by a judge of the existence of probable cause In G.R. Nos. 84581-82 (Roque vs. De Villa), the arrest of Amelia
before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra, without warrant, is also justified. When
offense is bailable. Obviously, the absence of a judicial warrant is no legal apprehended at the house of Renato Constantino in Marikina Heights,
impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violence Marikina, Metro Manila, Wilfredo Buenaobra admitted that he was an
against government forces, or any other milder acts but equally in pursuance of NPA courier and he had with him letters to Renato Constantino and other
the rebellious movement. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies members of the rebel group. Amelia Roque, upon the other hand, was a
of the situation that involves the very survival of society and its government and
member of the National United Front Commission, in charge of finance,
duly constituted authorities. If killing and other acts of violence against the rebels
and admitted ownership of subversive documents found in the house of her
find justification in the exigencies of armed hostilities which is of the essence of
waging a rebellion or insurrection, most assuredly so in case of invasion, merely sister in Caloocan City. She was also in possession of ammunition and a
seizing their persons and detaining them while any of these contingencies fragmentation grenade for which she had no permit or authority to possess.
continues cannot be ess justified. x x x” 3 The record of these two (2) cases shows that on 27 June 1988, one
The record, moreover, shows that the criminal case filed against Rolando Rogelio Ramos y Ibanes, a member of the NPA, who had surrendered to
Dural and Bernardo Itucal, Jr. for “Double Murder, etc.” was tried in the the military authorities, told military agents about the operations of the
court below and at the conclusion thereof, or on 17 August 1988, Rolando Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New Peoples Army
Dural and Bernardo Itucal, Jr. were found guilty of the charge and (NPA) in Metro Manila. He identified some of his former comrades as “Ka
sentenced accordingly. Rolando Dural is now serving the sentence imposed Mong”, a staff member of the Communications and Transportation Bureau;
upon him by the trial court. Thus, the writ of habeas corpus is no longer “Ka Nelia”, a staff member in charge of finance; “Ka Miller”, an NPA courier
available to him. For, as held in the early case of U.S. vs. Wilson: 4 from Sorsogon and Lopez, Quezon; “Ka Ted”, and “Ka Totoy”. He also
“In this case, whatever may be said about the manner of his arrest, the fact pointed to a certain house occupied by Renato Constantino located in the
remains that the defendant was actually in court in the custody of the law on Villaluz Compound, Molave St., Marikina Heights, Marikina, Metro
March 29, when a complaint sufficient in form and substance was read to him. To Manila, which is used as a safehouse of the National United Front
this he pleaded not guilty. The trial followed, in which, and in the judgment of Commission (NUFC) of the CPP-NPA.
guilty pronounced by the court, we find no error. Whether, if there were In view of these revelations, the Constantino house was placed under
irregularities in bringing him personally before the court, he could have been military surveillance and on 12 August 1988, pursuant to a search warrant
released on a writ of habeas corpus or now has a civil action for damages against
issued by Judge Eutropio Migrino of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, a
the person who arrested him we need not inquire. It is enough to say that such
search of the house was conducted at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, by
irregularities are not sufficient to set aside a valid judgment rendered upon a
sufficient complaint and after a trial free from error.” a combined team of the Criminal Investigation Service, National Capital
District (CIS-NCD) and the Constabulary Security Group (CSG). In the
_______________ course of the search, the following articles were found and taken under
proper receipt:
3Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile, G.R. No. 61388, April 20, 1983, 121 SCRA 472, 488-489.
44 Phil. 317, 325.
320
1. a)One (1) Colt M16A1 long rifle with defaced serial number;
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 2. b)One (1) Cal. .380 ACT/9mm Model PPK/8 SN: 260577 & 2605778;
Umil vs. Ramos 321
VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 321 Also found in Buenaobra’s possession was a piece of paper containing a
Umil vs. Ramos written but jumbled telephone number of Florida M. Roque, sister of Amelia
Roque alias “Ka Nelia”, at 69 Geronimo St., Caloocan City. Acting on the
1. c)Two (2) fragmentation hand grenades; lead provided as to the whereabouts of Amelia Roque, the military agents
2. d)Fifty-six (56) live ammunition for Cal. 5.56mm; went to the given address the next day (13 August 1988). They arrived at
3. e)Five (5) live ammunition for Cal. .380; 322
4. f)One (1) ICOM VHF FM Radio Transciever SN: 14903 322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
5. g)One (1) Regulated power supply 220V AC; Umil vs. Ramos
6. h)One (1) Antennae (adjustable); the place at about 11:00 o’clock in the morning. After identifying themselves
7. i)One (1) Speaker with cord ALEXAR; as military agents and after seeking permission to search the place, which
8. j)Voluminous Subversive documents.
was granted, the military agents conducted a search in the presence of the
occupants of the house and the barangay captain of the place, one Jesus D.
When confronted, Renato Constantino could not produce any permit or
Olba.
authority to possess the firearms, ammunition, radio and other
The military agents found the place to be another safehouse of the
communications equipment. Hence, he was brought to the CIS
NUFC/CPP. They found ledgers, journals, vouchers, bank deposit books,
Headquarters for investigation. When questioned, he refused to give a
folders, computer diskettes, and subversive documents as well as live
written statement, although he admitted that he was a staff member of the
ammunition for a .38 SPL Winchester, 11 rounds of live ammunition for a
executive committee of the NUFC and a ranking member of the
cal. .45, 19 rounds of live ammunition for an M16 Rifle, and a fragmentation
International Department of the Communist Party of the Philippines
grenade. As a result, Amelia Roque and the other occupants of the house
(CPP).
were brought to the PC-CIS Headquarters at Camp Crame, Quezon City,
At about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day (12 August 1988),
for investigation. Amelia Roque admitted to the investigators that the
Wilfredo Buenaobra arrived at the house of Renato Constantino in the
voluminous documents belonged to her and that the other occupants of the
Villaluz Compound. When accosted, he readily admitted to the military
house had no knowledge of them. As a result, the said other occupants of
agents that he is a regular member of the CPP/NPA and that he went to
the house were released from custody.
the place to deliver letters to “Ka Mong”, referring to Renato Constantino,
On 15 August 1988, Amelia Roque was brought to the Caloocan City
and other members of the rebel group. On further questioning, he also
Fiscal for inquest after which an information charging her with violation of
admitted that he is known as “Ka Miller” and that he was from Barangay
PD 1866 was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. The case
San Pedro, Lopez, Quezon. Among the items taken from him were the
is docketed therein as Criminal Case No. C-1196. Another information for
following:
violation of the Anti-Subversion Act was filed against Amelia Roque before
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, which is docketed therein as
1. (1)Handwritten letter addressed to “Ka Bing & Co. from A & Co.” dated
August 11, 1988; Criminal Case No. C-150458.
2. (2)Handwritten letter addressed to “ROD from VIC (Schell datre)” dated An information for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act was filed
August 11, 1988; against Wilfredo Buenaobra before the Metropolitan Trial Court of
3. (3)Handwritten letter addressed to “Suzie” from “Vic”, dated August 11, Marikina, Metro Manila. The case is docketed therein as Criminal Case No.
1988. 23715. Bail was set at P4,000.00.
On 24 August 1988, a petition for habeas corpus was filed before this
Court on behalf of Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra. At the hearing
of the case, however, Wilfredo Buenaobra manifested his desire to stay in 3. c)One (1) Cal. 7.65 Pietro Barreta SN; A18868 last digit tampered with one
the PC-INP Stockade at Camp Crame, Quezon City. Accordingly, the (1) magazine containing five (5) live ammunition of same caliber.
petition for habeas corpus filed on his behalf is now moot and academic.
Only the petition of Amelia Roque remains for resolution. At the PC Stockade, Domingo Anonuevo was identified as “Ka
The contention of respondents that petitioners Roque and Buenaobra are
_______________
officers and/or members of the National United Front Commission (NUFC)
of the CPP was not controverted or 5Lorenzo vs. Mc Coy, 15 Phil. 559.
323 324
VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 323 324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Umil vs. Ramos Umil vs. Ramos
traversed by said petitioners. The contention must be deemed admitted.5 As Ted”, and Ramon Casiple as “Ka Totoy” of the CPP, by their comrades who
officers and/or members of the NUFC-CPP, their arrest, without warrant, had previously surrendered to the military.
was justified for the same reasons earlier stated vis-a-vis Rolando Dural. On 15 August 1988, the record of the investigation and other
The arrest without warrant of Roque was additionally justified as she was, documentary evidence were forwarded to the Provincial Fiscal at Pasig,
at the time of apprehension, in possession of ammunitions without license Metro Manila, who conducted an inquest, after which Domingo Anonuevo
to possess them. and Ramon Casiple were charged with violation of Presidential Decree No.
1866 before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila. The cases are
III docketed therein as Criminal Cases Nos. 74386 and 74387, respectively. No
bail was recommended.
In G.R. Nos. 84583-84 (Anonuevo vs. Ramos), the arrest of Domingo On 24 August 1988, a petition for habeas corpus was filed with this Court
Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple, without warrant, is also justified under the on behalf of Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple, alleging that the said
rules. Both are admittedly members of the standing committee of the NUFC Anonuevo and Casiple were unlawfully arrested without a warrant and
and, when apprehended in the house of Renato Constantino, they had a bag that the informations filed against them are null and void for having been
containing subversive materials, and both carried firearms and filed without prior hearing and preliminary investigation. On 30 August
ammunition for which they had no license to possess or carry. 1988, the Court issued the writ of habeas corpus, and after the respondents
The record of these two (2) cases shows that at about 7:30 o’clock in the had filed a Return of the Writ, the parties were heard.
evening of 13 August 1988, Domingo T. Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple The petitioners’ (Anonuevo and Casiple) claim that they were unlawfully
arrived at the house of Renato Constantino at Marikina Heights, Marikina, arrested because there was no previous warrant of arrest, is without merit.
which was still under surveillance by military agents. The military agents The record shows that Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple were
noticed bulging objects on their waist lines. When frisked, the agents found carrying unlicensed firearms and ammunition in their person when they
them to be loaded guns. Anonuevo and Casiple were asked to show their were apprehended.
permit or license to possess or carry firearms and ammunition, but they There is also no merit in the contention that the informations filed
could not produce any. Hence, they were brought to PC Headquarters for against them are null and void for want of a preliminary investigation. The
investigation. Found in their possession were the following articles: filing of an information, without a preliminary investigation having been
first conducted, is sanctioned by the Rules. Sec. 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of
1. a)Voluminous subversive documents
Court, as amended, reads:
2. b)One (1) Cal. 7.65 MOD 83 2C Pistol SN: 001412 with one (1) magazine
for Cal. 7.65 containing ten (10) live ammunition of same caliber;
“Sec. 7. When accused lawfully arrested without a warrant.—When a person is ammunition when she was arrested. The record of this case shows that on
lawfully arrested without a warrant for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial 12 May 1988, agents of the PC Intelligence and Investigation of the Rizal
Court the complaint or information may be filed by the offended party, peace PC-INP Command, armed with a search warrant issued by Judge Eutropio
officer or fiscal without a preliminary investigation having been first conducted, Migrino of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, conducted a
on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.
search of a house located at Block 19, Phase II, Marikina Green Heights,
However, before the filing of such complaint or information, the person arrested
Marikina, Metro Manila, believed to be occupied by Benito Tiamson, head
may ask for a preliminary investigation by a proper officer in accordance with this
Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised of the CPP-NPA. In the
326
Penal Code, as amended, with
325 326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 325 Umil vs. Ramos
Umil vs. Ramos course of the search, Vicky Ocaya arrived in a car driven by Danny Rivera.
the assistance of a lawyer and in case of non-availability of a lawyer, a responsible Subversive documents and several rounds of ammunition for a .45 cal.
person of his choice. Notwithstanding such waiver, he may apply for bail as pistol were found in the car of Vicky Ocaya. As a result, Vicky Ocaya and
provided in the corresponding rule and the investigation must be terminated Danny Rivera were brought to the PC Headquarters for investigation.
within fifteen (15) days from its inception. When Vicky Ocaya could not produce any permit or authorization to possess
If the case has been filed in court without a preliminary investigation having the ammunition, an information charging her with violation of PD 1866 was
been first conducted, the accused may within five (5) days from the time he learns filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila. The case is
of the filing of the information, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 73447. Danny Rivera, on the other
right to adduce evidence in his favor in the manner prescribed in this Rule.”
hand, was released from custody.
The petitioners Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple, however, refused
On 17 May 1988, a petition for habeas corpus was filed, with this Court
to sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code,
on behalf of Vicky Ocaya and Danny Rivera. It was alleged therein that
as amended. In the informations filed against them, the prosecutor made Vicky Ocaya was illegally arrested and detained, and denied the right to a
identical certifications, as follows: preliminary investigation.
“This is to certify that the accused has been charged in accordance with Sec. 7,
It would appear, however, that Vicky Ocaya was arrested in flagranti
Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, that no preliminary
investigation was conducted because the accused has not made and signed a delicto so that her arrest without a warrant is justified. No preliminary
waiver of the provisions of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; that investigation was conducted because she was arrested without a warrant
based on the evidence presented, there is reasonable ground to believe that the and she refused to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal
crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.” Code, pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
Nor did petitioners ask for a preliminary investigation after the
informations had been filed against them in court. Petitioners cannot now V
claim that they have been deprived of their constitutional right to due
The petitioners Vicky Ocaya, Domingo Anonuevo, Ramon Casiple, and
process.
Amelia Roque claim that the firearms, ammunition and subversive
IV documents alleged to have been found in their possession when they were
arrested, did not belong to them, but were “planted” by the military agents
In G.R. No. 83162 (Ocaya vs. Aguirre), the arrest without warrant, of Vicky to justify their illegal arrest.
Ocaya is justified under the Rules, since she had with her unlicensed
The petitioners, however, have not introduced any evidence to support Anonuevo and Casiple are among those expected to visit Constantino’s residence
their aforesaid claim. On the other hand, no evil motive or ill-will on the considering that Constantino’s information was true, in that Buenaobra did come
part of the arresting officers that would cause the said arresting officers in to that place? Was it unreasonable under the circumstances, on the part of the
these cases to accuse the petitioners falsely, has been shown. Besides, the military agents, not to frisk and search anyone who should visit the residence of
Constantino, such as petitioners Anonuevo and Ca-
arresting officers in these cases do not appear to be seekers of glory and
bounty hunters for, as counsel for the petitioners Anonuevo and Casiple _______________
say, “there is absolutely nothing in the evidence submitted during the
inquest that petitioners are on the ‘AFP Order of 6 Rollo of G.R. Nos. 84583-84, p. 105.
327 328
VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 327 328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Umil vs. Ramos Umil vs. Ramos
Battle with a reward of P150,000.00 each on their heads.’ ” On the other
6
siple? Must this Honorable Court yield to Anonuevo and Casiple’s flimsy and bare
assertion that they went to visit Constantino, who was to leave for Saudi Arabia
hand, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, the arrest of the petitioners
on the day they were arrested thereat?
is not a product of a witch hunt or a fishing expedition, but the result of an
As to petitioner Roque, was it unreasonable for the military authorities to effect
in-depth surveillance of NPA safehouses pointed to by no less than former her arrest without warrant considering that it was Buenaobra who provided the
comrades of the petitioners in the rebel movement. leads on her identity? It cannot be denied that Buenaobra had connection with
The Solicitor General, in his Consolidated Memorandum, aptly observes: Roque. Because the former has the phone number of the latter. Why the necessity
“x x x. To reiterate, the focal point in the case of petitioners Roque, Buenaobra, of jumbling Roque’s telephone number as written on a piece of paper taken from
Anonuevo and Casiple, was the lawful search and seizure conducted by the Buenaobra’s possession? Petitioners Roque and Buenaobra have not offered any
military at the residence of Renato Constantino at Villaluz Compound, Molave St., plausible reason so far.
Marikina Heights, Marikina, Metro Manila. The raid at Constantino’s residence, In all the above incidents, respondents maintain that they acted reasonably,
was not a witch hunting or fishing expedition on the part of the military. It was a under the time, place and circumstances of the events in question, especially
result of an in-depth military surveillance coupled with the leads provided by considering that at the time of petitioners’ arrest, incriminatory evidence, i.e,
former members of the underground subversive organizations. That raid produced firearms, ammunitions and/or subversive documents were found in their
positive results. To date, nobody has disputed the fact that the residence of possession.
Constantino when raided yielded communication equipment, firearms and Petitioners, when arrested, were neither taking their snacks nor innocently
ammunitions, as well as subversive documents. visiting a camp, but were arrested in such time, place and circumstances, from
The military agents working on the information provided by Constantino that which one can reasonably conclude that they were up to a sinister plot, involving
other members of his group were coming to his place, reasonably conducted a utmost secrecy and comprehensive conspiracy.”
‘stake-out’ operation whereby some members of the raiding team were left behind
the place. True enough, barely two hours after the raid and Constantino’s arrest, VI
petitioner Buenaobra arrived at Constantino’s residence. He acted suspiciously
and when frisked and searched by the military authorities, found in his person In G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu vs. Lim), the release on habeas corpus of the
were letters. They are no ordinary letters, as even a cursory reading would show. petitioner Deogracias Espiritu, who is detained by virtue of an Information
Not only that, Buenaobra admitted that he is a NPA courier and was there to for Violation of Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code (Inciting to Sedition)
deliver the letters to Constantino.
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, is similarly not warranted.
Subsequently, less than twenty four hours after the arrest of Constantino and
The record of the case shows that the said petitioner is the General
Buenaobra, petitioners Anonuevo and Casiple arrived at Constantino’s place.
Would it be unreasonable for the military agents to believe that petitioners Secretary of the Pinagkaisahang Samahan ng Tsuper at Operators
Nationwide (PISTON), an association of drivers and operators of public Espiritu taking the place of PISTON president Medardo Roda and also announced
service vehicles in the Philippines, organized for their mutual aid and the formation of the Alliance Drivers Association to go on nationwide strike on
protection. November 23, 1988.” 8
Petitioner claims that at about 5:00 o’clock in the morning of 23 Policemen waited for petitioner outside the National Press Club in order to
November 1988, while he was sleeping in his home located at 363 Valencia investigate him, but he gave the lawmen the slip. He was next seen at
9
St., Sta. Mesa, Manila, he was awakened by his sister Maria Paz Lalic who about 5:00 o’clock that afternoon at a
told him that a group of persons wanted to hire his jeepney. When he went _______________
down to talk to them, he was immediately put under arrest. When he asked
for the warrant of arrest, the men, headed by Col. Ricardo Reyes, bodily 7 Petition, Nos. 4 to 8, inclusive.
lifted him and placed him in their owner-type jeepney. 8 Return of Writ.
9 Exhibit 2.
329
330
VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 329
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Umil vs. Ramos
Umil vs. Ramos
He demanded that his sister, Maria Paz Lalic, be allowed to accompany
gathering of drivers and symphatizers at the corner of Magsaysay Blvd. and
him, but the men did not accede to his request and hurriedly sped away.
Valencia Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila where he was heard to say:
He was brought to Police Station No. 8 of the Western Police District at
“Bukas tuloy ang welga natin, sumagot na ang Cebu at Bicol na kasali sila, at
Blumentritt, Manila where he was interrogated and detained. Then, at
hindi tayo titigil hanggang hindi binibigay ng gobyerno ni Cory ang gusto nating
about 9:00 o’clock of the same morning, he was brought before the pagbaba ng halaga ng spare parts, bilihin at ang pagpapalaya sa ating pinuno na
respondent Lim and, there and then, the said respondent ordered his arrest si Ka Roda hanggang sa magkagulo na. ” (emphasis supplied)
10
and detention. He was thereafter brought to the General Assignment The police finally caught up with the petitioner on 23 November 1988. He
Section, Investigation Division of the Western Police District under Police was invited for questioning and brought to police headquarters after which
Capt. Cresenciano A. Cabasal where he was detained, restrained and an Information for violation of Art. 142 of the Revised Penal Code was filed
deprived of his liberty.7
against him before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. 11
The respondents claim however, that the detention of the petitioner is Since the arrest of the petitioner without a warrant was in accordance
justified in view of the Information filed against him before the Regional with the provisions of Rule 113, Sec. 5(b) of the Rules of Court and that the
Trial Court of Manila, docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 88-683-85, petitioner is detained by virtue of a valid information filed with the
charging him with violation of Art. 142 of the Revised Penal Code (Inciting competent court, he may not be released on habeas corpus. He may,
to Sedition). however be released upon posting bail as recommended. However, we find
The respondents also claim that the petitioner was lawfully arrested the amount of the recommended bail (P60,000.00) excessive and we reduce
without a judicial warrant of arrest since petitioner when arrested had in it to P10,000.00 only.
fact just committed an offense in that in the afternoon of 22 November 1988,
during a press conference at the National Press Club. VII
“Deogracias Espiritu through tri-media was heard urging all drivers and operators
to go on nationwide strike on November 23, 1988, to force the government to give In G.R. No. 86332 (Nazareno vs. Station Commander), we also find no merit
in to their demands to lower the prices of spare parts, commodities, water and the in the submission of Narciso Nazarenothat he was illegally arrested and is
immediate release from detention of the president of the PISTON (Pinag-isang unlawfully detained. The record of this case shows that at about 8:30 o’clock
Samahan ng Tsuper Operators Nationwide). Further, we heard Deogracias in the morning of 14 December 1988, one Romulo Bunye II was killed by a
group of men near the corner of T. Molina and Mendiola Streets in Alabang, The findings of the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Biñan,
Muntinglupa, Metro Manila. One of the suspects in the killing was Ramil Laguna are based upon the facts and the law. Consequently, we will not
Regala who was arrested by the police on 28 December 1988. Upon disturb the same. Evidently, the arrest of Nazareno was effected by the
questioning, Regala pointed to Narciso Nazareno as one of his companions police without warrant pursuant to Sec. 5 (b), Rule 113, Rules of Court after
in the killing of the said Romulo Bunye II. In view thereof, the police he was positively implicated by his co-accused Ramil Regala in the killing
officers, without of Romulo Bunye II; and after investigation by the police authorities. As
held in People vs. Ancheta: 12
Exhibit 4.
11
_______________
331
VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 331 12 68 Phil. 415.
Umil vs. Ramos 332
warrant, picked up Narciso Nazareno and brought him to the police 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
headquarters for questioning. Obviously, the evidence of petitioner’s guilt Umil vs. Ramos
is strong because on 3 January 1989, an information charging Narciso fulfillment thereof, the indubitable existence of a crime. For the detention to be
Nazareno, Ramil Regala, and two (2) others, with the killing of Romulo perfectly legal, it is sufficient that the agent or person in authority making the
Bunye II was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila. arrest has reasonably sufficient grounds to believe the existence of an act having
The case is docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 731. the characteristics of a crime and that the same grounds exist to believe that the
person sought to be detained participated therein.”
On 7 January 1989, Narciso Nazareno filed a motion to post bail, but the
motion was denied by the trial court in an order dated 10 January 1989, VIII
even as the motion to post bail, earlier filed by his co-accused, Manuel
Laureaga, was granted by the same trial court. It is to be noted that, in all the petitions here considered, criminal charges
On 13 January 1989, a petition for habeas corpus was filed with this have been filed in the proper courts against the petitioners. The rule is, that
Court on behalf of Narciso Nazareno and on 13 January 1989, the Court if a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an
issued the writ of habeas corpus, returnable to the Presiding Judge of the officer under process issued by a court or judge, and that the court or judge
Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna, Branch 24, ordering said court to had jurisdiction to issue the process or make the order, or if such person is
hear the case on 30 January 1989 and thereafter resolve the petition. charged before any court, the writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed.
At the conclusion of the hearing, or on 1 February 1989, the Presiding Section 4, Rule 102, Rules of Court, as amended is quite explicit in
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna issued a resolution providing that:
denying the petition for habeas corpus, it appearing that the said Narciso “Sec. 4. When writ is not allowed or discharge authorized.—If it appears that the
Nazareno is in the custody of the respondents by reason of an information person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under
filed against him with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of
which had taken cognizance of said case and had, in fact, denied the motion record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the
for bail filed by said Narciso Nazareno (presumably because of the strength judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction
of the evidence against him). appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of
any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order. Nor shall anything in
this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a person charged with or convicted of must inquire into every phase and aspect of petitioner’s detention—from
an offense in the Philippines or of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful the moment petitioner was taken into custody up to the moment the court
judgment.” (emphasis supplied) passes upon the merits of the petition;” and “only after such a scrutiny can
At this point, we refer to petitioners’ plea for the Court to reexamine and, the court satisfy itself that the due process clause of our Constitution has in
thereafter, abandon its pronouncement in Ilagan vs. Enrile, that a writ of
13
fact
habeas corpus is no longer available after an information is filed against
the person detained and a warrant of arrest or an order of commitment is _______________
issued by the court where said information has been filed. The petitioners
14
warrant of arrest or order of commitment should be issued even after the information has
been filed against the detained person, would seem superfluous. As aptly stated in the early
_______________
case of U.S. vs. Wilson, 4 Phil. 381, “where a person who has been legally arrested without a
warrant was actually before a court, that court had a right to proceed against him without in
G.R. No. 70748, Oct. 21, 1985, 139 SCRA 349.
13
the first place issuing a warrant for his detention.”
Actually, the requirement in the Ilagan case doctrine that a
14
15 G.R. Nos. 61016 and 61107, April 26, 1983, 121 SCRA 538, 563.
333
334
VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 333 334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Umil vs. Ramos Umil vs. Ramos
claim that the said ruling, which was handed down during the past been satisfied.” This is exactly what the Court has done in the petitions at
dictatorial regime to enforce and strengthen said regime, has no place
bar. This is what should henceforth be done in all future cases of habeas
under the present democratic dispensation and collides with the basic, corpus. In short, all cases involving deprivation of individual liberty should
fundamental, and constitutional rights of the people. Petitioners point out be promptly brought to the courts for their immediate scrutiny and
that the said doctrine makes possible the arrest and detention of innocent
disposition.
persons despite lack of evidence against them, and, most often, it is only WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED, except that in
after a petition for habeas corpus is filed before the court that the military G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu vs. Lim), the bail bond for petitioner’s provisional
authorities file the criminal information in the courts of law to be able to liberty is hereby ordered reduced from P60,000.00 to P10,000.00. No costs.
hide behind the protective mantle of the said doctrine. This, petitioners SO ORDERED.
assert, stands as an obstacle to the freedom and liberty of the people and Fernan (C.J.), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez,
permits lawless and arbitrary State action.
Jr., Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-
We find, however, no compelling reason to abandon the said doctrine. It Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
is based upon express provision of the Rules of Court and the exigencies Cruz, J., See separate opinion.
served by the law. The fears expressed by the petitioners are not really
Feliciano, J., See separate concurring statement.
unremediable. As the Court sees it, re-examination or reappraisal, with a
Sarmiento, J., I dissent. See dissenting opinion.
view to its abandonment, of the Ilagan case doctrine is not the answer. The
Cortés, J., I join Mr. Justice Feliciano in his separate concurring
answer and the better practice would be, not to limit the function of habeas statement.
corpus to a mere inquiry as to whether or not the court which issued the
process, judgment or order of commitment or before whom the detained CRUZ, J., Dissenting and Concurring:
person is charged, had jurisdiction or not to issue the process, judgment or
order or to take cognizance of the case, but rather, as the Court itself states I dissent insofar as the ponencia affirms the ruling in Garcia-Padilla v.
in Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, “in all petitions for habeas corpus the court
15
Enrile that subversion is a continuing offense, to justify the arrest without
warrant of any person at any time as long as the authorities say he has been visible effort to examine the basis, scope and meaning of such a sweeping
placed under surveillance on suspicion of the offense. That is a dangerous statement. Garcia-Padilla did not even identify the specific offenses which
doctrine. A person may be arrested when he is doing the most innocent acts, it regarded as “in the nature of continuing offenses which set them apart
as when he is only washing his hands, or taking his supper, or even when from the common offenses” (121 SCRA at 489). It appears to me that in G.R.
he is sleeping, on the ground that he is committing the “continuing” offense No. 85727 (Espiritu v. Lim) (Part VI of the Decision), the per
of subversion. Libertarians were appalled when that doctrine was imposed curiam opinion has in effect included the offense of “inciting to sedition”
during the Marcos regime. I am alarmed that even now this new Court is penalized under Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code as a “continuing
willing to sustain it. I strongly urge my colleagues to discard it altogether offense” under the capacious blanket of the majority opinion in Garcia-
as one of the disgraceful vestiges of the past dictatorship and uphold the Padilla, at least for purposes of determining the legality of the arrest
rule guaranteeing the right of the people against unreasonable searches without a warrant of petitioner Deogracias Espiritu.
and seizures. We can do no less if we are really to reject the past oppression I would respectfully recall to my learned colleagues in the Court that
and commit ourselves to the true freedom. Even if it be argued that the “inciting to sedition” is defined in Article 142 of the
military 336
335 336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 335 Umil vs. Ramos
Umil vs. Ramos Revised Penal Code in terms of speech and that consequently it is
1
should be given every support in our fight against subversion, I maintain important constantly to distinguish between speech which is protected by
that that fight must be waged honorably, in accordance with the Bill of the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and of the press and speech
Rights. I do not believe that in fighting the enemy we must adopt the ways which may constitutionally be regarded as violative of Article 142 of the
of the enemy, which are precisely what we are fighting against. I submit Revised Penal Code. Precisely because speech which the police authorities
that our more important motivation should be what are we fighting for. might regard as seditious or as criminal inciting to sedition may well turn
Except for this reservation and appeal, I concur with the decision. out to be only an exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed freedom, I would
submit that we must apply the concept of “continuing offense” narrowly for
FELICIANO, J., Concurring purposes of application of Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Court. In my view, the very broad statement made about “continuing
I concur in the result reached in each of the eight (8) consolidated Petitions crimes” in G.R. No. 81567 (Umil, et al. v. Ramos) constitutes dictum,
for Habeas Corpus. At the same time, I have some reservations concerning considering that Rolando Dural and Bernardo Itucal, Jr. had already been
certain statements made by the Court in G.R. No. 81567 (Umil, et tried in the court below for “double murder, etc.” and found guilty of the
al. v. Ramos) (Part I of the Decision) and in G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu v. offense charged, sentenced accordingly, and at least in the case of Rolando
Lim) (Part VI of the Decision). Dural, service of the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court had
In G.R. No. 81567 (Umil, et al. v. Ramos), the per curiam opinion states already begun.
categorically that: “the crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or Similarly, in G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu v. Lim) the statement that the
proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in arrest of petitioner Espiritu without a warrant was in accordance with the
furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults provisions of Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the
against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes.” The majority
here relies upon Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile (121 SCRA 472 [1983]). The _______________
majority there made the same equally broad statement but without any
1 Article 142. Inciting to sedition.—The penalty of prision correccionalin its maximum period 2. (b)When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts
it; and
which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems cartoons,
banners, or other representa tions tending to the same end, or upon any person or persons who 3. (c)When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
Government of the Republic of the Philippines, or any of the duly constituted authorities temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
thereof, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his transferred from one confinement to another.
office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or
which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested
people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and
order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices. (As amended by without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail,
Com. Act No. 202). and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7. 1
337 “Rolando Dural,” so states the majority, “was arrested for being a member
VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 337 of the New People’s Army (NPA), an outlawed
Umil vs. Ramos
_______________
Revised Rules of Court does not appear strictly necessary, considering that
the petitioner had already been charged in a valid information filed with 1RULES OF COURT, Rule 113, sec. 5.
the competent court, which court had presumably issued an order for his 338
commitment, and considering further that he is entitled to bail. 338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
There is thus no obstacle, to my mind, to a careful examination of the Umil vs. Ramos
doctrine of “continuing crimes” as applied to such offenses as subversion subversive organization,” and that “[s]ubversion being a continuing
2
and inciting to sedition and possibly other offenses, in some future case offense, the arrest of Rolando Dural without a warrant is justified as it can
where that issue is raised squarely and is unavoidable. be said that he was committing an offense when arrested.” 3
I beg to differ from my brethren. I submit that habeas corpus lies in all eight
for which he was supposedly arrested via a warrantless arrest—subversion
cases.
was the logical crime with which he should have been charged.
G.R. No. 81567 The authorities could not have rightly arrested him for subversion on
account of the slay of the two CAPCOM soldiers, a possible basis for
The majority says that Rolando Dural’s arrest without a warrant is lawful violation of the Anti-Subversion Act, because as the majority points out, “he
under the Rules of Court, which reads: was not arrested while in the act of shooting [them]. . .[n]or was he arrested
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or a private person just after the commission of the said offense for his arrest came a day
may, without a warrant, arrest a person: after the said shooting incident.” 5
_______________ _______________
act contemplated by law. The writ of liberty is a high prerogative writ. Vindication of due process
11
Under the Rule above-quoted, the person must have either been is its historic office.12
the duty of this Court, in my opinion, to make sure that Buenaobra has
The rule, furthermore, on warrantless arrest is an exceptional one. By
made his choice freely and voluntarily. Personally, I find it indeed strange
its language, it may be exercised only in the most urgent cases and when
why he should prefer to stay in jail than go scotfree.
the guilt of an offender is plain and evident. What I think we have here is
There is further no doubt that Buenaobra’s petition is one impressed
purely and simply, the military taking the law in its hands.
with a public interest. In one case we denied a motion to withdraw a
14
35573, September 17, 1974, 59 SCRA 183, 247-248, citing among other cases, Gonzales v.
this is still possible under a supposed democracy.
Commission on Elections, No. L-27833, April 18, 1969, 27 SCRA 835 and Krivenko v. Register
of Deeds, 79 Phil. 461 (1947). _______________
15 Decision, supra.
341 Supra.
16
Supra.
17
VOL. 187, JULY 9, 1990 341 342
Umil vs. Ramos 342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
That both parties had admitted to be members of the Communist Party of Umil vs. Ramos
the Philippines (the National United Front Commission) is a naked
contention of the military. The fact that it has not been controverted, in my G.R. No. 85727
view, does not justify the couple’s arrest without a warrant. Worse, by
relying on the bare word of the military, this very Court has, to all intents Deogracias Espiritu was fast asleep in his house when he was placed under
and purposes, condemned the duo for a crime (subversion and/or illegal arrest. For the life of me, I can not figure out how one can be picked upon
possession of firearms) the bone of contention, precisely, below. in one’s own home and held moments later without a warrant of arrest.
Espiritu was allegedly guilty of inciting to sedition as a result of a speech
G.R. Nos. 84583-84 delivered in a press conference at the National Press Club on November 21,
1988. He was, however, arrested the day after, November 22, 1988. Under
I also find the warrantless arrests of Domingo Añonuevo and Ramon these circumstances, it eludes me how an arrest without a warrant could
Casiple to be contrary to law. That they are “admittedly members of the be justified, either under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the Rule on
standing committee of the NUFC” and that “subversive materials” and
16 17
warrantless arrests.
unlicensed firearms were found in their possession, are, like Buenaobra’s The majority avers that since an information had been filed with the
and Roque’s cases, barren claims of the military. I also fear that by the court, Espiritu’s detention, is allegedly justifiable. The question is whether
majority’s strong language (that Añonuevo and Casiple are admitted NUCF or not an information is an authority to hold a person in custody. Under the
officers) the majority has pronounced the petitioners guilty, when the lower Rules, an information means “an accusation in writing charging a person
courts have yet to sit in judgment. I think we should be the last to preempt with an offense subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court.” It is not,
18
under arrest without a warrant or the existence of the circumstance now prevailing, the Chief Executive shares, to a certain extent, the exercise
described under either paragraph (a) or (b) of the Rule above-quoted: The of emergency powers, with Congress. 24
crime had long been committed prior to the arrest. As a law advocate under the regime of Marcos, I had challenged the
soundness of Garcia-Padilla. I doubted whether it could stand up under the
G.R. Nos. 81567; 84581-82; 84583-84; 83162; aegis of the 1973 Constitution. I still doubt whether it can withstand
85727 & 86332; Postscripts scrutiny under the 1987
The majority has disposed of these cases on the bedrock of _______________
I also find, for reasons to be set forth hereinafter, a glossing over of the my view has significantly whittled down Garcia-Padilla’s very esse. In that
fundamental rights of the petitioners under the Constitution in the case, Mr. Justice Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr. wrote for the majority:
authorities’ handling of the petitioners’ cases. xxx xxx xxx
I hold that Garcia-Padilla is no longer good law under the present
1. 16.After a person is arrested . . . without a warrant . . . the proper complaint
Constitution. Two reasons persuade me. First, it is repugnant to due
or information against him must be filed with the courts of justice within
process of law. (“The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure
the time prescribed by law . . .
in the prosecution of offenses which require the determination by a judge of 2. 17.Failure of the public officer to do so without any valid reason would
the existence of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of constitute a violation of Art. 125, Revised Penal Code, as amended. And
arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable.” Under the 1987
21
the person detained would be entitled to be released on a writ of habeas
Constitution, not even “[a] state of martial law suspend[s] the operation of corpus, unless he is detained under subsisting process issued by a
[the Charter]. . .” Second, it leaves the liberty of citizens to the whim of one
22 competent court. 26
I also gather from the records that none of the petitioners had been: (1) and untenable. In that case, the accused had been served with a warrant
informed of their right to remain silent; and (2) to have competent and and thereafter taken into custody. The question that faced the Court was
independent counsel. 27 whether or not the warrant was valid, amid the accused’s charges that the
As I said, the majority is denying habeas corpus on self-serving claims of judge who issued it did not examine the complainant under oath. We held
the military that the petitioners (Dural, Buenaobra, Roque, Añonuevo, and that the query was academic, because the accused had already pleaded, and
Casiple) are members of the Communist Party of the Philippines—and that the case had entered the trial stage.
they have supposedly confessed to be in fact members of the outlawed The cases at bar are not on all fours. Here, no warrant has been issued.
organization. The question that has not been answered is whether or not I submit that in that event, the petitioners are entitled to freedom by way
these supposed confessions are admissible, for purposes of a warrantless of the writ of liberty.
arrest, as evidence of guilt, in the absence of any showing that they were xxx
apprised of their constitutional rights. I am perturbed by the silence of the The apprehensions in question chronicle in my mind the increasing
majority. I am distressed because as we held in one case, violation of the pattern of arrests and detention in the country without the sanction of a
Constitution divests the court of jurisdiction and entitles the accused judicial decree. Four years ago at “EDSA”, and many years before it,
to habeas corpus. 28 although with much fewer of us, we valiantly challenged a dictator and all
According to the majority, a “re-examination or re-appraisal . . . of the the evils his regime had
Ilagan doctrine is not the answer.” In my consid-
29
_______________
_______________
30 Supra.
25 Nos. 61016-7, April 16, 1983, 121 SCRA 538. 31 Supra, 364-365.
32 Ilagan v. Enrile, supra, 384, Teehankee, J., Dissenting.
26 Supra, 560, 562.
33 Supra.
27 CONST., art. III, sec. 12.
——o0o——
1. 1.CMMINAL LAW; REBELLION; ELEMENTS OF: PENALTY.— 1. there can be no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed
According to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, one of the means by for each one of said offenses put together. In directing that the penalty for
which rebellion may be committed is by "engaging in war against the the graver offense be, in such case, imposed in its maximum period, Article
forces of the government" and "committing serious violence" in the 48 of the Revised Penal Code could have had no other purpose than to
prosecution of said war". These expressions imply everything that war prescribe a. penalty lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each
connotes, namely: resort to arms, requisition of property and services, oifense, if imposed separately. The reason for this benevolent spirit of
collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damages to Article 48 is readily discernible. When two or more crimes/ are the result
property, physical injuries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits
unhappiness that war leaves in its wake. Being within the purview of said crimes through separate and distinct acts. Instead of sentencing him
"engaging in war" and "committing serious violence", said act of resorting for each crime independently from the other, he must suffer the maximuin
_to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction of life and of the penalty f or the more serious one, on the assumption that it is less
property—when, as alleged in the information, performed "as a necessary grave than the sum total of the separate penalties for each offense.
means to commit rebellion, in connection therewith and in futherance
thereof" and "so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the * * * purpose" of 1. 5.ID.; ID.; CBIMINAL PROCEDURE; BAIL; WHEN ACCUSED
the rebellion—constitutes neither two or more offenses, nor a complex ENTITLED TO BAIL.—Individual freedom is too basic, too
crime, but one crime—that of rebellion. plain and simple, punishable with transcendental and vital in a republican state, to be denied mere general
one single penalty, namely, that prescribed in said Article 135. principles and abstract considerations of public policy. Considering that
the information filed against defendant is simply rebellion, the penalty for
1. 2.ID.; ID.; COMMON CRIMES PERPETRATED IN FURTHERANCE OF which cannot exceed twelve years of prision mayor and a fine of P20,000;
A POLITICAL OFFENSE, NOT SUBJECT TO EXTRADITION.— that defendant was sentenced by the lower court, not to the extreme
National as well as international, laws and jurisprudence overwhelmingly penalty, but to life imprisonment; and that the decision appealed from and
favor the proposition that common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of the opposition to the petition for bail do not reveal satisfectorily any
a political offense, are divested of their character as "common" offenses concrete, positive act of the defendant showing, sufficiently, that his
and assumes the political complexion of the main crime of which they are provisional release, during the pendency of the appeal, would jeopardize
mere ingredients, and, consequently, could not be punished, under Article the security of the State, said defendant may be allowed bail.
244 of the old Penal Code of the Philippines, separately f rom the principal
oifense, or complexed with the^ same, to justify the imposition of a graver MOTION for bail pending appeal of the judgment of the Court of First
penalty. Instance of Manila. Montesa, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1. 3.ID.; ID.; COMPLEX CRIMES; ARTICLE 48 APPLIES ONLY WHEN Jose P. Laurel, Claudio Techankee, Enrique Fernando,Vicente A.
Two CRIMES ARE COMMITTED.—The language of Article 48 of the Rafael, Manuel Q. Chan and Juan T. David for appellant A. V. Hernandez.
Revised Penal Code presupposes the commission of two or more crimes,
Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla for appellee.
and hence, does not apply when the culprit is guilty of only onecrime.
RESOLUTION
1. 4.ID.; ID.; ID.; "PRO REO" PRINCIPLE; LESS CRIMINAL PERVERSITY
CONCEPCION, J.:
IN COMPLEX CRIMES.—If one act constitutes two or more offenses,
This refers to the petition for bail filed by defendantappellant Amado 518 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Hernandez on June 26, 1954, and renewed People vs. Hernandez, et al.
517 14082, 14270, 14315, and 14344 of the Court of First Instance of Manila (decided
VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 517 May 11, 1951) and also with others whose whereabouts and identities are still
People vs. Hernandez, et al. unknown, the said accused and their co-conspirators, being then officers and/or
on December 22, 1955. A similar petition, filed on December'28, 1953, had members of, or otherwise associated with the Congress of Labor Organizations
been denied by a resolution of this court dated February 2, 1954. Although (CLO) formerly known as the Committee on Labor. Organization (CLO), an active
not stated in said resolution, the same was due mainly to these agency, organ, and instrumentality of the Communist Party of the Philippines
circumstances: The prosecution maintains that Hernandez is charged with, (P.K.P.), with central offices in Manila and chapters and affiliated or associated
labor unions and other 'mass organizations' in different places in the Philippines,
and has been convicted of, rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and
and as such agency, organ, and instrumentality, fully cooperates in, and
robberies, for which the capital punishment, it is claimed, may be imposed, synchronizes its activities with the rebellious activities of the 'Hukbong
although the lower court sentenced him merely to life imprisonment. Upon Magpalayang Bayan, (H.M.B.) and other organs, agencies, and instrumentalities
the other hand, the defense contends, among other things, that rebellion of the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.) to thereby assure, facilitate,
can not be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery. Inasmuch as the issue and effect the complete and permanent success of the armed rebellion against the
thus raised had not been previously settled squarely, and this court was Repubflic of the Philippines, as the herein defendants and their co-conspirators
then unable, as yet, to reach a definite conclusion thereon, it was deemed have in fact synchronized the activities of the CLO with the rebellious activities of
best not to disturb, for the time being, the course of action taken by the the HMB and other agencies, organs and instrumentalities of the Communist
lower court, which denied bail to the movant. After mature deliberation, Party of the Philippines and have otherwise master-minded or promoted the
our considered opinion on said issue is as follows: cooperative efforts between the CLO and HMB and other agencies, organs, and
The first two paragraphs of the amended information in this case read: instrumentalitifcs of the P.K.P. in the prosecution of the rebellion against the
Republic of the Philippines, and being theri also high ranking officers and/or
"The tmdersigned accuses (1) Amado V.
Hernandez alias Victor alias Soliman alias Amado alias AVH alias Victor members of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Communist Party of the Philippines
Soliman, (2) Guillermo Capadocia alias Huan Bantiling alias Cap alias G. (P.K.P.), which is now actively engaged in an armed rebellion against the
Government of the Philippines through acts therefor committed and planned to be
Capadocia, (3) Mariano P. Balgos alias Bakal alias Tony
Collantes alias Bonifacio, (4) Alfredo further committed in Manila and other places in the Philippines, and of which
party the 'Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan' (HMB), otherwise or formerly known
Saulo alias Elias alias Fred alias A.B.S. alias A.B., (5) Andres Baisa, Jr. alia-
as the 'Hukbalahaps' (Huks), is the armed force, did then and there willfully,
s Ben alias Andy (6) Genaro de la Cruz alias Gonzalo alias Gorio alias Arong, (7)
Aquilino Bunsol alias Anong, (8) Adriano Samson alias Danoy, (9) Juan J. unlawfully and feloniously help, support, promote, maintain, cause, direct and/or
command the *Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan' (HMB) or the 'Hukbalahaps'
Cruz alias Johnny 2, alias Jessie Wilson alias William, (10) Jacobo Espino, (11)
(Huks) to rise publicly and take arms against the Republic of the Philippines, or
Amado Racanday, (12) Fermin Rodillas, and (13) Julian Lumanog alias Manue, of
otherwise participate in such armed public uprising, for the purpose of removing
the crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies committed as
follows: the territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to the government and laws
"That on or about March 15, 1945, and for some time before the said date and thereof as in fact the said 'Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan' or 'Hukbalahaps'
have risen publicly and taken arms to attain the said purpose by then and there
contimiously thereafter tmtil the present time, in the City of Manila, Philippines,
making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary
and the place which they had chosen as the nerve center of all their rebellious
and army detachments as well as innocent civilians, and as a necessary means to
activities in the different parts of the Philippines, the said accused, conspiring,
confederating, and cooperating with each other, as well as with the thirty-one (31) commit the crime af rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance
defendants charged in criminal cases Nos. 14071, thereof, have then and there committed acts of murder, pillage, looting, plnnder^
518 a^son, and plan-
519 1. 4."exacting contributions or"
VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 519 2. 5."diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been
People vs. Hernandez, et al. appropriated".
ned destruction of private and public property to create and spread chaos, disorder,
terror, and fear so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, as Whether performed singly or collectively, these five (5) classes of acts
follows, to wit:" constitute only one offiense, and no more, and are, altogether, subject to
Then follows a description of the murders, arsons and robberies allegedly only one penalty—prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000. Thus for
perperated by the accused "as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, instance, a public officer who assists the rebels by turning over to them, for
in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof." use in financing the uprising, the public funds entrusted to his custody,
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that: could neither be prosecuted for malversation of such funds, apart from
"When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when
rebellion, nor accused and convicted of the complex crime of rebellion with
an oifense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most
malversation of public funds. The reason is that such malversation is
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period."
inherent in the crime of rebeliion committed by him. In fact, he would not
It is obvious, from the language of this article, that the same presupposes
be guilty of rebellion had he not so misappropriated said funds. In the
the commission of two (2) or more crimes, and, hence, does not apply when
imposition, upon said public officer, of the penalty for rebellion it wvuld
the culprit is guilty of only one crime.
even be improper to consider the aggravating circumstance of advantage
Article 134 of said code reads:
"The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking taken by the offender of his public position, this being an essential element
arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to of the crime he had perpetrated. Now, then, if the office held by said
said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part offender and the nature of the f unds malversed by him cannot aggravate
thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or of depriving the Chief the penalty for his offense, it is clear that neither may it worsen the
Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or very crime committed by the culprit by giving rise, either to an
prerogatives." independent crime, or to a complex crime. Needless to say, a mere
Pursuant to Article 135 of the same code "any person, merely participating participant in the rebellion, who is not a public officer, should not be placed
or executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty at a more disadvantageous position than the promoters, maintainers or
of prision mayor in its minimum period." leaders of the movement, or the public officers who join the same, insofar
The penalty is increased to priswn mayor and a fine not to exceed as the application of Article 48 is concerned.
P20,000 for "any person who promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion or One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of
insurrection or who, while holding any public office or employment, takes said Article 135, is by "engaging in war against the forces of the
part therein": government" and "committing serious violence" in the prosecution of said
"war". These expressions imply everything that war connotes, namely;
1. 1."engaging in war against the forces of the government", 521
2. 2."destroying property", or VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 521
3. 3."committing serious violence", People vs. Hernandez, et al.
resort to arms, requisition of property and services, collec
520
520 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED tion of taxes and contributions, restraint of Hberty, damage to property,
People vs. Hernandez, et al. physical injuries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and unhappiness
that war leaves in its wake—except that, very often, it is worse than war in
the international sense, f or it involves internal struggle, a fight between "The execution of some of the guerrilla suspects mentioned in these counts and the
brothers, with a bitterness and passion or ruthlessness seldom found in a infliction of physical injuries on others are not offenses separate from treason.
contest between strangers. Being within the purview of "engaging in war" Under the Philippine treason law and under the United States constitution
and "committing serious violence", said resort to arms, with the resulting defming treason, after which the former was patterned, there must concur both
adherence to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort. One without the other
impairment or destruction of life and property, constitutes not two or more
does not make treason.
offense, but only one crime—that of rebellion plain and simple. Thus, f or
"In the nature of things, the giving of aid and comfort can only be accomplished
instance, it has been held that "the crime of treason may be committed 'by by some kind of action. Its very nature part&kes, of a deed or physical activity as
executing either a single or similar intentional overt acts, diff erent or opposed to a mental operation. (Cramer vs. U.S., ante.) This deed or physical
similar but distinct, and for that reason, it may be considered one single activity may be, and often is, in itself a criminal offense under another penal
continuous offense. (Guinto vs.Veluz, 77 Phil., 801, 44 Off. Gaz., 909.)" statute or provision. Even so, when the deed is charged as an element of treason it
(People vs.Pacheco, 93 Phil., 521.) becomes identified with the latter crime and can not b.e the subject of a separate
Inasmuch as the acts specified in said Article 135 constitute, we punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty as Article
repeat, one single crime, it follows necessarily that said acts offer no 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides. Just as one can not be punished for
occasion for the application of Article 48, which requires therefor the possessing opium in a prosecution for smoking the identical drug, and a robber
commission of, at least, two crimes. Hence, this court has never in the past, cannot be held guilty of coercion or trespass to a dwelling in a prosecution for
robbery, because possession of opium and force and trespass are inherent in
convicted any person of the "complex crime of rebellion with murder". What
smoking and in robbery respectively, so may not a defendant be made liable for
is more, it appears that in every one of the cases of rebellion published in
murder as a separate crime or in conjunction with another offense where, as in
the Philippine Reports, the defendants were convicted this case, it is averfed as a constitutive ingredient of treason. * * * Where imirder
of simplerebellion, although they had killed several persons,sometimes or physical injuries are charged as overt acts of treason * * * they can not be
peace officers (U. S. vs. Lagnason, 3 PhiL, 472; U. S. vs. Baldello, 3 Phil., regarded separately under their general denomination." (Italics supplied.)
509, U. S. vs. Ayala, 6 Phil., 151; League vs. People, 73 PhiL, 155). Accordingly, we convicted the accused of simple treason and sentenced him
Following a parallel line are our decisions in the more recent cases of to Hfe imprisonment.
treason, resulting from eollaboration with the Japanese during the war in 523
the Pacific. In fact, said cases went further than the aforementioned cases VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 523
of rebellion, in that the theory of the prosecution to the People vs. Hernandez, et al.
522 In People vs. Labra, 81 Phil., 377, 46 Off. Gaz., Supp. No. 1, p. 159, we used
522 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED the following language:
People vs. Hernandez, et al. "The lower eourt found appellant guilty not only of treason, but of nrnrder, for the
effect that the accused in said treason cases were guilty of the complex killing of Tomas Abella, and, following the provisions of Article 48 of the Revised
crime of treason with murder and other crimes was expressly and Penal Code sentenced him to death, the maximum penalty provided by article 114.
repeatedty rejected therein. Thus, commenting on the decision of the "The lower court erred in finding appellant guilty of the murder of Tomas
People's Court flnding the accused in People w. Prieto (80 Phil., 138, 45 Off. Abella. The arrest and killing of Tomas Abella for being a guerilla, is alleged in
Gaz., 3329) "guilty of * * * the crime of treason complexed by murder and count 3 of the information, as one of the elements of the crime of treason for which
appellant is prosecuted. Such element constitute a part of the legal basis upon
physical injuries" and sentencing him to death,and on the contention of the
which appellant stands convicted of the crime of treason. The killing of Tomas
Solicitor General that Prieto had coimnitted the "complex crime of treason
Abella cannot be considered as legal ground for convicfing appellant of any crime
with homicide", this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Tuason, said: other than treason. The essential elements of a given crime cannot be
disintegrated in different parts, each one stand as a separate grotmd to convict the
accused of a different crime or criminal offense. The elements constituting a given criine of murder" and sentenced to the extreme penalty. In our decision,
crime are integral and inseparable parts of a whole. In the contemplation of the penned by Mr. Justice Montemayor, we expressed ourselves as follows:
law, they cannot be used for double or multiple purposes. Tliey can only be used for The appellant herein was and is a Filipino citizen. His adherence to the Japanese
the sole purpose of showing the commission of the crime of which they form part. forces of occupation and giving them aid and comfort by acting as their spy,
The factual complexity of the crime of treason does not endow it with the functional undercover man, investigator, and even killer when necessary to cow and compel
ability of worm multiplication or amoeba reproduction. Otherwise, the accused will the inhabitants to surrender their firearms and disclose information about the
have to face as many prosecution^ and convictions as there are elements in the guerrillas has been fully established. His manner of investigation and
crime of treason, in open violation of the constitutional prohibition against double maltreatment of some of his victims like Tereso Sanchez and Patricio Suico, was
jeopardy," (Italics supplied.) so cruel, brutal and inhuman that it is almost unbelievable that a Filipino can
The same conclusion was reached in People vs. Alibotod 82 Phil., 164, 46 commit and practice such atrocities especially on his own countrymen. But,
Off. Gaz., 1005, despite the direct partidpation of the def endant therein in evidently, war, confusion and opportunism can and do produce characters and
the maltreatment and killing of several persons. monster unknown during peace and normal times.
In People vs. Vilo 82 Phil., 524, 46 Off. Gaz., 2517, we held: "The People's Court found the appellant guilty of treason complexed with
"The People's Court, however, erred in classifying the crime as treason with murder. The Solicitor General, however, maintains that the offense committed
murder. The killing of Amado Satorre and one Segundo is charged as an element is simple treason, citing the doctrine laid down by this court in the case
of treason, and it therefore becomes identified with the latter crime, and cannot be of People vs. Prieto, (L—399, 45 Oif. Gaz., 3329) but accompanied by the
the subject of a separate punishment or used in combination with treason to aggravating circumstance under Article 14, paragraph 21, of the Revised Penal
mcrease the penalty as Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code Code, and not compensated by any mitigating circumstance, and he recommends
provides." (People vs. Prieto, L-399, 45 Off. Gaz. 3329. See also People vs. Labra, the imposition of the penalty of death. We agree with the Solicitor General that on
1^886, 46 Oif. Gaz., [Supp. to No. 1], 159.) (Italics supplied.) the basis of the ruling of this court
524 525
524 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 525
People vs. Hernandez, et al. People vs. Hernandez, et al.
To the same effect was our decision in People vs. Roble 83 Phil., 1, 46 Off. in the case of People vs. Prieto, supra, the appellant may be convicted only of
Gaz., 4207. We stated therein: treason, and that the killing and infliction of physical injuries committed by him
"The court held that the facts alleged in the information is a complev crime of may not be separated from the crime of treason but should be regarded as acts
treason with murders, with the result that the penalty provided for the most performed in the commission of treason, although, as stated in said case, the
serious offense was to be imposed on its maximum degree. Viewing the case from brutality with which the killing or physical injuries were carried out may be taken
the standpoint of modifying circumstances, the court believed that the same result as an aggravating circumstance." (Italics supplied.)
obtained. It opined that the killings were murders qualified by treachery and and reduced the penalty from death to life imprisonmentand a fine of
aggravated by the circumstances of evident premeditation, superior strength, F20,000.
cruelty, and an armed band. Identical were the pertinent features of the case
"We think this is error. The tortures and murders set forth fn the information of People vs. Adlawan, 83 Phil., 194, 46 Off. Gaz., 4299, in which, through
are merged in and formed part of the treason. They were in this case the overt acts Mr. Justice Reyes (A), we declared:
which, besides^ traitorous intention supplied a vital ingredient in the crime." "* * * we find merit in the contention that appellant should have not been convicted
(Italics supplied.) of the so-called 'Complex crime of treason with murder, robbery, and rape.' The
The accused in People vs. Delgado 83 PhiL, 9, 46 Off. Gaz., 4213, had been killings, robbery, and raping mentioned in the information are therein alleged not
convicted by the People's Court of "the crime of treason complexed with the as specific offenses but as mere elements of \the crime of treason for which the
accused is being prosecuted. Being merged in and identified with the general
charged, they can not be used in combination with the treason to increase the "With. the approval on June 17, 1948, of Republic Act No. 311 abolishing the
penalty under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Prieto, L-399, People's Court, the criminal case in that court against the petitioner was, pursuant
January 29, 1948, 45 Off. Gaz., 3329.) Appellant should, therefore, be held guilty to the provisions of said Act, transferred to the Court of First Instance of
of treason only" (Italics supplied.) Zamboanga and there the charges of treason were amplified. Arraigned in that
In People vs. Suralta, 85 Phil., 714, 47 Off. Gaz., 4595, the language used tourt upon the amended information, petitioner presented a motion to quash,
was: challenging the jurisdiction of the court and pleading double jeopardy because of
"* * * But the People's Court erred in finding the appellant guilty of the complex his previous sentence in the military court. But the court denied the motion and,
crime of treason with murder, because murder was an ingredient of the crime of after petitioner had pleaded not guilty, proceeded to trial, whereupon, the present
treason, as we have heretofore held in several cases. (Italics supplied.) petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed in this court to have the trial judge
This was reiterated in People vs. Navea, 87 PhiL, 1, 47 Off. Gaz., Supp. No. desist from proceeding with the trial and dismiss the case.
12, p. 252: "It is, however, claimed that the offense charged in the military court different
"The Solicitor General recommends that the appellant be sentenced for the from that charged in the civil court and that even granting that the offense was
complex crime of treason with murder. We have already ruled, however, that identical the military court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same
where, as in the present case, the killing is charged as an element of treason, it because the People's Court had previously acquired jurisdiction over the case with
'becomes identified with the latter crime and cannot be thz subject of a separate th.e
527
punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty as Article
48 of the Revised Penal Code provides" (Italics supplied.)
VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 527
526 People vs. Hernandez, et al.
526 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED result that the conviction in the court martial was void. In support of the first
People vs. Hernandez, et al. point, it is urged that the amended information filed in the Court of First Instance
of Zamboanga contains overt acts distinct from those charged in the military court.
The question at bar was, also, taken up in the case of Crisologo vs. People
But we note that while certain overt acts specified in the amended information in
and Villalobos (94 PhiL, 477), decided on February 26,1954. The facts and
the Zamboanga court were not specified in the indictment in the court martial,
the rule therein laid down are set forth in our unanimous decision in said they all are embraced in the general charge of treason, which is a continuous
case, from which we quote: offense and one who commits it is not criminally liable for as many crimes as there
"The petitioner Juan D. Crisologo, a captain in the USAPFE during the last world are overt acts, because all overt act 'he has done or might Jiave done for that
war and at the time of the filing of the present petition a lieutenant colonel in the purpose constitute but a single offense.' (Guinto vs. Veluz, 44 Off. Gaz.,
Armed Forces of the Philippines, was on March 12, 1946, accused of treason under 909; People vs. Pacheco, L-4750, promulgated July 31, 1953.) In other words, since
Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code in an information filed in the People's Court. the offense charged in the amended information in the Court of First Instance of
But before the accused could be brought under the jurisdiction of the court, he was Zamboanga is treason, the fact that the said information contains an enumeration
on January 13, 1947, indicted for violations of Commonwealth Act No. 408, of additional overt acts not specifically mentioned in the indictment before the
otherwise known as the Articles of War, before a military court created by military court is immaterial since the new alleged overt acts do not in themselves
authority of the Army Chief of Staff, the indictment containing three charges, two constitute a new and distinct offense from that of treasont and this court has
of which, the first and third, were those of treason consisting in giving information repeatedly held that a person cannot be found guilty of treason and at the same
and aid to the enemy leading to the capture of USAFFE officers and men and other time also guilty of overt acts specified in the information for treason even if those
persons with anti-Japanese reputation and in urging members of the USAFFE to overt acts,, considered separately, are punishable by law, for the simple reason that
surrender and cooperate with the enemy, while the second was that of having those overt acts are not separate offenses distinct from that of treason but constitute
certain civilians killed in time of war. Found innocent of the first and third charges ingredients thereof." (Italics suplied.)
but guilty of the second, he was on May, 8, 1947, sentenced by the military court Thus, insofar as treason is concerned, the opinion of this court, on the
to life imprisonment.
question whether said crime may be complexed with murder, when the
former was committed through the latter, and it is so alleged in the essential elements—thus clearly indicating that everything done in the
information, had positively and clearly crystalized itself in the negative as proseeution of said war, as a means necessary therefor, is embraced
early as January 29, 1948. therein—unlike the provision on treason (Article 114, Revised Penal Code)
We have not overlooked the decision in People vs. Labra(L-1240, decided which is less explicit thereon.
on May 12, 1949), the dispositive paft of which partly reads: It is urged that, if the crime of assault upon a person in authority or an
"Wherefore, the verdict of guilty must be affirmed. Articles 48, 114 and 248 of the agent of a person in authority may
Revised Penal Code are applicable to the offense of treason with murder. However 529
for lack of sufficient votes to impose the extreme penalty, the appellant will be VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 529
sentenced to life imprisonment. * * *." People vs. Hernandez, et aL
Although it mentions Articles 48 and 248 of the Revised Penal Code and be committed with physical injuries (U. S. vs. Montiel, 9 Phil, 162),
"the offense of treason with murder," it should be noted that homicide (People vs. Lojo, 52 Phil., 390) and murder (U.
we affirmed therein the action of the S. vs. Ginosolongo, 23 Phil., 171; U. S. vs.Baluyot, 40 Phil., 385), and rape
528
may be perpetrated with physical injuries (U. S. vs. Andaya, 34 Phil., 690),
528 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
then rebellion may, similarly, be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery.
People vs. Hernandez, et al. The conclusion does not follow, for engaging in war, serious violence,
People's Court, which, according to the opening statement of our decision, physical injuries and destruction of life and property are inherent in
convicted Labra of "treason aggravated with murder". Besides, the rebellion, but not in assault upon persons in authority or agents of persons
applicability of said articles was not disciissed in said decision. It is obvious, in authority or in rape. The word "rebellion" evokes, not merely a challenge
from a mere perusal thereof, thaj; this court had no intention of passing to the constituted authorities, but, also, civil war, on a bigger or lesser scale,
upon such question. Otherwise, it would have explained why it did not with all the evils that go with it, whereas, neither rape nor assault upon
follow the rule laid down in the previous cases of Prieto, Labra (August 10, persons in authority connotes necessarily, or even generally, either physical
1948), Alibotod, Vilo, Roble, Delgado and Adlawan (supra), in which the injuries, or murder. 1
issue was explidtly examined and decided in the negative. Our continued In support of the theory that a rebel who kills in furtherance of the
adherence to this view in the subsequent cases of Suralta, Navea, Pacheco insurrection is guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murder, our
and Crisologo, without even a passing reference to the second Labra case, attention has been called to Article 244 of the old Penal Code of the
shows that we did not consider the same as reflecting the opinion of the Philippines, reading:
court on said question. At any rate, insofar as it suggests otherwise, the "Los delitos particulares cometidos en tma rebelion o sedicion, o con motivo de
position taken in the second Labra case must be deemed reversed by our ellas, seran castigados respectivamente segun las disposiciones de este Codigo.
decisions in said cases of Suralta, Navea, Pacheco and Crisologo. "Cuando no puedan descubrirse sus autores seran penados como tales los jefes
It is true that treason and rebellion are distinct and different from each principales de la rebelion o sedicion."
other. This does not detract, however, from the rule that the ingredients of and to the foHowing observations of Cuello Calon (Derecho Penal, Vol. II,
a crime form part and parcel thereof, and, hence, are absorbed by the same p. 110), in relation thereto:
and cannot be punished either separately therefrom or by the application "Se establece aqui que el en una rebelion o sedicion, o con motivo de ellas, comete
of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Besides there is more reason to otros delitos (v.g., roba, mata o lesiona), sera responsable de estos ademas de los
apply said rule in the crime of rebellion than in that of treason, for the law delitos de rebelion o sedicion. La dificultad consiste en estds casos en separar los
punishing rebellion (Article 135, Revised Penal Code) specificallymentions accidentes de la rebelion o s^dicion de los delitos independientes de estas, y como
las leyes no contienen en este punto precepto alguno aplicable, su solucion ha
the act of engaging in war and committing serious violence among its
quedado encomendada a los tribunales. La
_______________ and of using serious violence for the purposes stated in Article 134 of the
1 ln the Andaya case the victim was a girl twelve years of age.
Revised Penal
531
530
530 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 531
People vs. Hernandez, et al. People vs. Hernandez, et al.
jurisprudencia que estos han sentado considera como accidentes de la rebelion o Code. In view of this express statutory inclusion of the acts of war
sedicion—cuya criminalidad queda embedida en la de estos delitos, y, por tanto, and serious violence among the ingredients of rebellion in the Philippines,
no son punibles especialmente—los hechos de escasa gravedad (v.g., atentados, it is clear that the distinction made by Cuello Calon between grave and less
desacatos, lesiones menos graves); por el contrario, las inf racciofces graves, como grave offenses committed in the course of an insurrection cannot be
el asesinato o las lesiones graves, se consideran como delitos independientes de la accepted in this jurisdiction. Again, if both classes of offenses are part and
rebelion o de la sedicion." parcel of a rebellion, or means necessary therefor, neither law nor logic
It should be noted, however, that said Article 244 of the old Penal Code of justifies the exclusion of the one and the inclusion of the other. In fact,
the Philippines has not been included in our Revised Penal Code. If the Cuello Calon admits that "the difficulty lies in separating the accidents of
applicability of Article 48 to rebellion was determined by the existence of rebellion or sedition from the offenses independent therefrom." Ergo,
said Article 244, then the elimination of the latter would be indicative of offenses that are not independent therefrom, but. constituting an integral
the contrary. part thereof—committed, precisely, to carry out the uprising to its
Besides, the crime of rebellion, referred to by Cuello Calon, was that successful conclusion—are beyond the purview of Article 244. Indeed, the
punished in the Spanish Penal Code, Article 243 of which provides: above quoted statement of CueUo Calon—to the effect that grave f elonies
"Son reos de rebelion los que se alzaren publicamente y ei? abierta hostilidad committed in the course of an insurrection are independent therefrom—was
contra el Gobierno para cualquiera de los objetos siguientes: based upon a decision of t;he Supreme Court of Spain of February 5, 1872,
which we find reported in the Codigo Penal de Filipinas, by Jose Perez
1. 1."Destronar al Rey, deponer al Regente o Regencia del Reino, o privarles
Rubio, as follows:
de su libertad personal u obligarles a ejecutar un acto contrario a su
"El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia en sentencia de 5 de Febrero de 1872, tiene
voluntad.
declarado: Que segun los articulos 184 del Codigo Penal de 1830, y 259 del
2. 2."Impedir la celebracion de las elecciones para Diputados a Cortes o
reformado (1870), los delitos particulares cometidos en una rebelion o sedicion o
Senadores en todo el Keino, o la reunion legitima de las mismas.
con motivo de ellas se castigan respectivamente segun las disposiciones de los
3. 3."Disolver las Cortes o impedir la deliberacion de alguno de los Cuerpos
mismos Codigos; y con arreglo al decreto de amnistia de 9 de Agosto de 1876 estan
Colegisladores o arrancarles alguna resolucion.
solo comprendidos en aquella gracia las personas sentenciadas, procesadas 6
4. 4."Ejecutar cuailquiera de los delitos previstos en el articulo 165.
sujetas a responsabilidad por delitos politicos de cualquiera especie cometidos
5. 5."Sustraer el Reino o parte de el o algun cuerpo de trop'i de tierra o de mar,
desde el 29 de Septiembre de 1868; Que el asesinato del Gobernador Civil de
o cualquiera otra clase de fuerza armada, de la obediencia del Supremo
Burgos na fu6 resultado de movimiento alguno politico, sino de un mero tumulto
Gobierno.
que imprimio el fanatismo, y cuya unica aparente tendencia era impedir que aquel
6. 6."Usar y ejercer por si o despojar a los Ministros de la Corona de sus
funcionario inventariase ciertos objetos artisticos que se decian existentes en la
facultades constitucionales, o impedirles o coartarles su libre ejercicio.
Catedral: Que esto lo demuestran las salvajes voces de muerte proferidas por los
(Articulo 167, Codigo Penal de 1850.—Veanse las demas concordancias del
asesinos contra la persona del Gobernador; sin que al ejecutar en 6l mismo recinto
articulo 181.)"
del templo los horrorosos hechos que aparecen en la causa, alzasen bandera
politica alguna ni dieran otro grito que el, en aquel momento sacrilego e impio, de
Thus, the Spanish Penal Code did not specifically declare that rebellion 'Viva la religion:' Que la apreciar la Sala sentenciadora los hechos refe-
includes the act of engaging in war against the forces of the Government
532 la circunstancia de alzamiento publico que caracteriza a los primeros, los cuales,
532 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED por su indole generica, absorben a los de atentado y demas infracciones que durante
People vs. Hernandez, et al. su comision y con su motivo se cometan, y afirmandose como hecho en la sentencia
rentes al {jobernador Civil de delito de asesinato, penarlo con arreglo al Codigo y recurrida que el procesado Mariano Esteban Martinez realizo, en union de otros,
declarar inaplicable el citado Decreto de Amnistia, no ha cometido el error de el atendado que se le imputa sin alzarse publicamente, cae por su base el recurso
derecho senalado en los casos 1.° 3.° del articulo 4.° de la ley sobre establecimiento fundado en supuesto distinto." (Jurisprudencia Criminal, Tomo 130, p. 551.)
de la cajsacion criminal, ni infringido los articulos 250 y 259 del Codigo Penal de (Italics supplied.)
1870." (Page 239; Italics supplied.) (See, also, "El Codigo Penal", by Hidalgo To the same effect are, likewise, the following:
Garcia, Vol. I, p. 623.)' "La provocacion y el ataque a la Guardia Civil por paisanos alzados
It is apparent that said case is not in point. There was no issue therein on tumultuariamente para impejdir al Delegado de un Gobernador civil el
whether murder may be complexed with rebellion or sedition. The question cumplimiento de sus providencias, no pueden estimarse constitutivos de un delito
for determination was whether the killers of the victim were guilty of the distinto del de sedicion, ni ser, por tanto, perseguidos y penados separadamente.
"La resistencia o el acometimiento de los sublevados a la fuerza publica
common crime of murder, or should have been convicted only of rebellion or
constituye, en su caso, una circuns.tancia o accidente de la sedicion y no es delito
sedition. The court adopted the first alternative, not because of de los que el Codigo Penal en este articulo (formerly Article 244, now Article 227)
the gravity of the acts performed by the accused, but because they had no supone que pueden cometerse en ella o con su motivo, los cuales denomina delitos
political motivation. Moreover, the footnote to said quotation from Cuello particulares, y manda que se penen conf orme a las disposiciones del propio Codigo.
Calon reads: (S. 23-5-890; G. 23-6-890; t. 44; pagina 671)" (II Doctrina Penal del Tribunal
"Los atentados desacatos y lesiones a la autoridad u otros delitos contra el orden Supremo, p. 2411.) (Italics supplied.)
publico cometidos en la sedicion o con motivo de ella, no son delitos distintos de la "La Audiencia condeno como autores de atentado a dos de los amotinados que
sedicion, 3 octubre 1903, 19 noviembre 1906; la resistencia o acometimiento a la agredieron al alcalde, e interpuesto recurso de casacion contra la sentencia, el
fuerza publica por los sediciosos es accidente de la rebelion, 23 mayo 1890. Tribunal Supremo la casa. y anula, teniendo en cuenta lo dispuesto en el articulo
"El asesinato de un gobernador cometido en el curso de un tumulto debe 250 (numero 3.°) del Codigo Penal;
penarse como un delito comun de asesinato, 5 febrero 1872. Sin embargo, la 'Considerando que el acto llevado a cabo por el grupo constituye una verdadera
jurisprudencia, tratandose de ciertos delitos, es vacilante; asi, v. g., el sedicion, sin que sea licito el dividir este hecho y calificarlo de atentado respecto a
acometimiento al teniente de alcalde se ha declarado en un fallo independiente de las personas que agredieron a dicho alcalde, porque el acometimiento fue un
la perturbacion tumultuaria promovida para impedir al alcalde el cumplimiento accidente de la sedicion, de la cual' eran todos responsables, ya se efectuara por los
de sus providencias, 16 marzo 1885, mientras que un hecho analogo se ha agrupados en conjunto o por uno solo, por ser comun el objeto que se proponian y
considerado en otra sentencia ya citada como accidente de la rebelion, 3 Octubre no individual; y al calificar y penar este hecho la Audencia de Gerona, de atentado
1903. El acometimiento de los sediciosos a la fuerza piiblica es accidente de la * * *, ha incurrido en error de derecho e infringido los articulos 250 y siguientes
sedicion y no uno de los delitos particulares a que se refiere este articulo, 23 de del Codigo Penal, por no haberlos aplicado, y el 263, numero 2.°, en relacion con el
mayo 1890. Entre estos delitos a que alude el precepto se hallan las lesiones que 264, numeros 1.° y 3.°, por su aplicacion * * *" (Sent, 3 octubre 1903.—Gac. 12
puedan causar los sediciosos, 19 noviembre 1906." (Footnote 21, II Cuelo Calon, Diciembre) (Enciclopedia Juridica Espanola, Tomo xxviii, p. 250).
Derecho Penal, pp. 110-111.) (Italics supplied.) These cases are in accord with the text of said Article 244, which refers, not
Thus in a decision, dated May 2, 1934, the Supreme Court of Spain held: to all offenses committed in the
"Considerando que la nota deferencial entre los delitos de rebelion y sedicion, de 534
una parte, y el de atentado, esta constituida por 534 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
533
People vs. Hernandez, et al.
VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 533
People vs. Hemandez, et al.
course of a rebellion or on the occasion thereof, but only to "delitos People vs. Hernandez, et al.
particulares" or common crimes. Now, what are "delitos particulares" as the expuesta en el comentario del articulo 258, es evidente que el fin que se
phrase is used in said article 244? We quote from Viada: propusieron los sediciosos fue no pagar el impuesto a cuya cobranza iba a pyoceder
"Las disposicion defl primer parrafo de este artfculo no puede ser mas justa; con el comisionado; pero para lograr este objeto, como lo lograron, fue preciso hacer
arreglo a ella, los delitos particulares o coizmnes cometidos en una rebelion or salir del pueblo al ejecutor, y a este efecto, lo amenazaron, lo persiguieron y
sedicion no deberan reputarse como accidentes inherentes a estas, sino como llegaron hasta lesionarle. Esas amenazas y lesiones no pudieron apreciarse, ni las
delitos especiales, a dicha rebelion y sedicion ajenos, los que deberan ser aprecio tampoco la Sala sentenciadora, como delito comun, sino como accidente
respectivamente castigados con las penas que en este C6digo se las senalan. Pero, inherente a la misma sedicion,por cuanto fueron im medio racionalmente
que delitos deberan considerarse como comunes, y cuales como constitutivos de la necesario para la consecucion del fin determinado que se propusieron los
propia rebelion o sedicion? En cuanto a la rebelion, no ofrece esta cuestion culpables.
dificultad alguna, pues todo hecho que no este comprendido en uno y otro de los "Pero cuando tal necesidad desaparece, cuando se hiere por herir, cuando se
objetos especificados en los seis numeros del articulo 243 sera extraiio a la mata por matar, el hecho ya, no puede ser considerado como un accidente propio
rebelion, y si se hallare definido en algun otro articulo del C6digo, con arreglo a de la sedicion, sino como tm delito especial, al que debe aplicarse la pena al mismo
este debera ser castigado como delito particular. Pero tratandose de la sedicion, correspondiente." (III Viada, pp. 311-312.) (Italks supplied.)
comprendiendose como objetos de la misma, en los numeros 3.°, 4.° y 5.° del Cuello Calon is even more illuminating. He says:
articulo 250, hechos que constituyen otros tantos ataques a las personas o a la "La doctrina cientifica considera los delitos llamados politicos como infracciones de
propiedad, cuales se consideran como accidentes inherentes a la propria sedicion, un caracter especial distintas de los denominados delitos comunes. De esta
y cuales deberari reputarse como delitos particulares o comunes? En cuanto a los apreciacion ha nacido la division de los delitos, desde el punto de vista de su
casos de los numeros 4.° y 5. , estimanos que el objeto politico y social que se naturaleza intrinse'ca, en delitos politicos y delitos comunes o de derechocomun.
requiera para la realizacion de los actos en aquellos comprendidos es el que debe "Se reputan delitos comunes aquellos que lesionan bienes juridicos individuales
servirnos de norma y guia, para distinguir lo inherente a la sedicion de lo que es (v. gr., los delitos contra la vida, contra la honestidad, contra la propiedad, etc.).
ajeno o extrano a ella. Cuando no exista ese objeto politico y social, el acto de odio "La nocion del delito poflitico no parece tan cl^ra. Desde luego revisten este
o venganza ejercido contra los particulares o cualquiera clase del Estado, y el caracter los que atentan contra el orden politico del Estado, contra su orden extenjo
atentado contra las propiedades de los ciudadanos o corporaciones mentados en el (independencia de la nacion, integridad del territorio, etc.) o contra el interno
numero 5.° del articulo 250, no seran constitutivos del delito de sedicion, sino que (delitos contra el Jefe del Estado, contra la forma de Gobierno, etc.)- Pero tambien
deberan ser apreciados y castigados como delitos comunes, segun las disposiciones pueden ser considerados como politicos todos los delitos, cualesquiera, que sean
respectivas de este Codigo—y por lo que toca a los actos de odio o venganza incluso los de derecho comtin, cuando fueron cometidos por moviles
ejercidos en la persona o bienes de alguna Autoridad o sus agentes, estimamos politicos. Deben, por tanto, estimarse como infracciones de esta clase, no solo las
que deberan reputarse como delitos convunes todos aquellos que objetivamente tengan tal caracter por el interes politico que lesionan, sino
hechos innecesarios para la consecucion del fin particular que se propusieran los
2 tambien las que, apreciadas subjetivamente,maiiifiestan una motivacion de
sediciosos—y como esenciales, constitutivos de la propia sedicion todos aquellos caracter politico.
actos de odio o venganza que sean medio racionalmente necesario para el logro del "Asi podria formulares esta definicion: es delito politico el cometido contra el
objeto especial a que se encaminaran los esfuerzos de los sublevados. Asi, en el caso orden politico del Estado, asi como todo delito de cualquiera otra clase determinado
de la Cuestion 1 por moviles poKttcos." (Cuello Calon, Derecho Penal, Tomo I, pp. 247-249.)
In short, political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order,
________________
as well as such common crimes as may
536
2 The information in the case at bar alleges that the acts therein set f orth were comnaitted "as
a necessary means to commit tlie crime of rebellion." 536 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
535 People vs. Hernandez, et al.
VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 535
be committed to achieve a political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent crimes were incidental to and formed a part of political disturbances.' Mr. John
or motive. If a crime usually regarded as common, like homicide, is Stuart Mill, in the house of commons, in 1866, while discussing an amendment to
perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance "to the the act of 'extradition, on which the treaty between England and France was
Government the territory of the Philippines Islands or any part thereof." founded, gave this defmition: Any offense committed in the course of or furthering
of civil war, insurrection, or political commotion.'Hansard's Debates Vol. 184, p.
then said offense becomes stripped of its "common" complexion, inasmuch
2115. In the Castioni Case, supra,decided in 1891, the question was discussed by
as, being part and parcel of the crime of rebellion, the former acquires the
the most eminent counsel at the English bar, and considered by distinguished
political character of tlie latter. judges, without a definition being framed that would draw a fixed and certain line
Conformably with the foregoing, the case of murder against the between a municipal or common crime and one of political character. 'I do not
defendant in U. S. vs. Lardizabal (1 Phil., 729)—an insurgent who killed a think/ said Denman, J., 'it is necessary or desirable that we should attempt to put
prisoner of war because he was too weak to march with the retreating rebel into language, in the shape of an exhaustive definition, exactly the whole state of
forces, and could not be left behind without endangering the safety of the things, or every state of things, which might bring a particular case within the
latter—was dismissed upon the ground that the execution of said prisoner description of an offense of a political character/ In that case, Castioni was charged
of wwr formed part of, and, was included in, the crime of sedition, which, in with the murder of one Rossi, by shooting him with a revolver, in the town of
turn, was covered by an amnesty, to the benefits of which said defendant Bellinzona, in the canton of Ticino, in Switzerland. The deceased, Rossi, was
was entitled. a member of the state council of the canton of Ticino. Castioni was a citizen of the
same canton. For some time previous to the nrurder, much dissatisfaction had
True, in U. S. vs. Alfont (1 Phil., 115), the commander of an unorganized
been felt and expressed by a large number of inhabitants of Ticino at the mode in
group of insurgents was, pursuant to Article 244 of our old Penal Code,
which the political party then in power were conducting the government of the
convicted of homicide for having shot and killed a woman who was driving canton. A request was presented to the government for a revision of the
a vehicle. But the complex crime of rebellion with homicide constitution of the canton and, the government having declined to take a popular
was notconsidered in that case. Apart from this, the accused failed to vote on that question, a number of the citizens of Bellinzona, among whom was
established the relation between her deaih and the insurrection. What is Castioni, seized the arsenal of the town, from which they took rifles and
more, it was neither proved nor alleged that he had been prompted by ammunition, disarmed the gendarmes, arrested and bound or handcuffed several
political reasons. In other words, his offense was independent from the persons connected with the government, and forced them to march in front of the
rebellion. The latter was merely the occasion for the commission of the armed crowd to the municipal palace. Admission to the palace was demanded in
former. the name of the people, and was refused by Rossi and another member of the
It is noteworthy that the aforementioned decisions of this court and the government, who were in the palace. The crowd then broke open the outer gate of
the palace, and rushed in, pushing before them the government officials whom
Supreme Court of Spain in cases of treason, rebellion and sedition, are in
they had arrested and bound. Castioni, who was armed with a revolver, was among
line with the trend in other countries, as well as in the field of international
the first to enter. A second door, which
relations. Referring to the question as to what offenses are 538
537
538 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 537
People vs. Hernandez, et al.
People vs. Hernandez, et al. was locked, was broken open, and at this time, or immediately after, Rossi, who
political in nature, it was said in In re Ezeta (62 Fed. Rep., 972): was in the passage, was shot through the body with a revolver, and died very soon
"What constitutes an offense of a political character has not yet been determined afterwards. Some other shots were fired, but no one else was injured. Castioni fled
by judicial authority. Sir James Stephens, in his work, History of the Criminal to England. His extradition was requested by the federal council of Switzerland.
Law of England (Volume 2, p. 71), thinks that it should be 'interpreted to mean He was arrested and taken before a police magistrate, as provided by the statute,
that fugitive criminals are not to be surrendered for extraditidn crimes if those who held him for extradition. Application was made by the accused to the high
court of justice of England for a writ of habeas corpus. He was represented by Sir detettnination of the character of the offense is incumbent upon the nations upon
Charles Russell, now lord chief justice. The attorney general, Sir Richard Webster, which the demand for extradition is made; and its decision shall be made under
appeared for the crown, and the solicitor general, Sir Edward Clarke, and Robert and according to the provisions of the law which shall prove to be most favorable
Woodfal, for the federal council of Switzerland. This array of distinguished to the accused:'
counsel, and the high character of the court, commends the case as one of the "I am not aware that any part of this Code has been made the basis of treaty
highest authority. It appeared from an admission by one of the parties engaged in stipulations between any of the American nations, but the article cited may be at
the disturbances 'that the death of Rossi was a misfortune, and not necessary for least accepted as expressing the wisdom of leading jurists and diplomats. The
the rising.' The opinions of the judges as to the political character of the crime article is important with respect to two of its features: (1) provides that a fugitive
charged against Castioni, upon the facts stated, is exceedingly interesting, but I shall not be extradited for an offense connected with a political offense, or with an
need only refer to the following passages. Judge Denman says: offense subversive of the internal or external safety of the state; and (2) the
"The question really is whether, upon the facts, it is clear that the man was decision as to the character of the offense shall be made under and according to
acting as one of a number of persons engaged in acts of violence of a political the provisions of the law which shall prove most favorable to the accused. The first
character with a political object, and as part of thc political movement and risiug provision is sanctioned by Calvo, who, speaking of the exemption from extradition
in which he was taking part.' of persons charged with political offenses, says:
"Judge Hawkins, in commenting upon the character of political offenses, said: 'The exemption even extends to acts connected with political crimes or offenses,
'I cannot help thinking that everybody knows there are many acts of a political and it is enough, as says Mr. Fuastin Helio; that a common crime be connected with
character done without reason, done against all reason; but at the same time one a political act, that it be the outcome of or be in the outcome of or be in the execution
cannot look too hardly, and weigh in golden scales the acts of men hot in their of such, to be covered by the privilege which protects the latter' Calvo,Droit Int.
political excitement. We know that in heat, and in heated blood, men often do (3me ed.) p. 413, section 1262.
things which are against and contrary to reason; but none the less an act of this "The second provision of the article is founded on the broad principles of
description may be done for the purpose of furthering and in fwrtherance of a humanity found everywhere in the criminal law, distinguishing its administration
political rising, even though it is an act which may be deplored and lamented, as with respect to even the worst features of our civilization from the cruelties of
even cruel and against all reason, by those who can calmly reflect upon it after the barbarism. When this article was under discussion in the international American
battle is over.' conference in Washington, Mr. Silva, of Colombia, submitted some observations
"Sir James Stephens, whose definition as an author has already been cited, was upon the difficulty of drawing a line between an offense of a political character and
one of the judges, and joined in the views taken as to the political character of the a coromon crime, and incidentally ref erred to the crime of robbery, in terms
crime charged against Castioni. The prisoner was discharged. Applying, by worthy of some consideration here. He said:
analogy, the action of the English court in that case to the four cases now before "In, the revolutions, as we conduct them in our countries, the common offenses
me, under consideration, the conclusion. follows that the crimes charged here, are necessarily mixed up with the political in
associated as they are wlth the actual conflict of armed forces, are of a political 540
character. 540 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
539 People vs. Hemandez, et al.
VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 539 many cases. A colleague General Caamano (of Ecuador) knows how we carry on
People vs. Hernandez, et al. wars. A revolutionist needs horses for moving-, beef to feed his troops, etc.; and
"The draft of a treaty on International Penal Law, adopted by the congress of since he does not go into the public markets to purchase these horses and that
Montevidecr in 1888, and recommended by the International American beef, nor the arms and saddfles to mount and equip his forces, lie takes them from
Conference to the governments of the Latin-American natiojis in 1890, contains the first pasture or shop he find at hand. This is called robbery everywhere, and is
the following provisions (Article 23): a common offense in time of peace, but in time of war it is a circumstance closely
"Political offenses, offenses subversive of the internal and external safety of a allied to the manner of waging it.' International American Conference, Vol. 2, p.
state or common offenses connected ivith these, shall not warrant extradition. The 615." (Italics supplied.)
We quote the following from footnote (23) on pages 249-250, Vol. I, of Cuello Thus, national, as well as international, laws and jurisprudence
Calon's aforesaid work on "Derecho Penal." overwhelmingly f avor the proposition that common crimes, perpetrated in
"En algunos €6digo y leyes de fecha proxima ya se halla una defhucion de estos f urtherance of a political offense, are divested of their character as
delitos. El Codigo penal ruso, en el articulo 58, define como 'delitos contra "common" offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime of
revolucionarios' los hechos encaminados a derrocar o debilitar el poder de los wkich they are mere ingredients, and,consequently, cannot be punished
Consejos de trabajadores y campesinos y de los gobiernos de la Union de separately from the principal offense, or complexed with the same, to justify
Republicas socialistas sovieticas, a destruir o debilitar la seguridad exterior de la
the imposition of a graver penalty.
Union de Republicas Sovieticas y las conquistas economicas, politicas y nacionales
There is one other reason—and a fundamental one at that—why Article
fundamentales de la revolucion proletaria.' El Codigo Penal italiano de 1930
considera en su articulo 8.° como delito politico 'todo delito que ofenda un interes 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were
politico del Estado o un derecho politico del ciudadano.' Tambien se reputa politico not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately
el delito comun determinado, en todo o en parte por motivos politicos. En la ley (assuming that this could be done), the following penalties would be
alemana de extradicion de 25 diciembre 1929 se definen asi: 'Son delitos politicos imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not
los atentados punibles directamente ejecutados contra la existencia o la seguridad exceeding P20,000 and prisidn mayor, in the corresponding period,
del Estado, contra el jefe o contra un miembro del gobierno del Estado como tal, depending upon the modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding
contra ima corporacion constitucional, contra los derechos politicos las buenas 12 years of prision mayor; and (2) for the crime of murder, reclmion
relaciones con el extranjero.' parrafo 3.°, 2. temporal in its maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying
"La 6a. Conferencia para la Unificacion del Derecho penal (Copenhague, 31 circumstances present. In other words, in the absence of aggravating
agosto—3 septiembre 1935) adopto la siguiente nocion del delito politico:
circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him.
However, under Article 48, said pznalty would have to be meted out to
1. "1.Por delitos politicos se entienden los dirigidos contra la organizaeion y
funcionamiento del Estado o contra los derechoa que de esta organizacion
him, even in tke absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said
y funcionamiento provienen para el culpable. provision, if construed in conformity with the theory of the prosecution,
2. "2.Tambien se consideran como delitos politicos los delitos de derecho wouW be unfavorable to the movant.
comun que constituyen hechos conexos con la ejecucion de los delitos Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was enacted for tfoe purpose
previstos en seccion 1.°: como los hechos dirigidos a of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him t® a penalty more severe than
that which would be proper
541 542
VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 541 542 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Hernandez, et al. People vs. Hernandez, et al.
if the several acts performed by him were punished separately. In the word
1. favorecer la ejecucion de un delito politico o a perniitir al autor de este delito of Rodriguez Navarro:
sustraerse a la aplicacion de la ley penal. "La unificacion de penas en los casos de concurso de delitos a que hace referencia
2. "3.No s6 consideraran delitos politicos aquellos a los que ?u autor sea esjte articulo (75 del Codigo de 1932), esta basado francamente en el principio pro
inducido por un motivo egoista y vil reo." (II Doctrina Pejial del Tribunal Supremo de Espana, p. 2168. )3
3. "4.No se consideraran delitos los que creen un peligro para la comimidad o We are aware of the fact that this observation refers to Article 71 (later 75)
un estado de terror." (Italics supplied.) of the Spanish Penal Code (the counterpart of our Article 48), as amended
in 1908 and then in 1932, reading:
"Las disposiciones. del articulo anterior no son aplicables en el caso de que un solo greater degree of malice than when the two off enses are independent of
hecho constituya dos o mas delitos, o cuando el uno de ellos sea medio necesario each other. On the contrary, since one offense is a necessary means for the
para cometer el otro. commission of the other, ilie evil intent is one, which, at least,
"En estos casos solo se impondra la pena correspondiente al delito mas grave quantitatively, is lesser than when the two offenses are ufirelated to each
en su grado maximo, hasta el limite que represente la suma de las que pudieran
other, because, in such event, he is twice guilty of having harbored criminal
imponerse, penando separadamente los delitos.
designs and of carrying the same into execution. Furthermore, it must be
"Cuando la pena asi computada exceda de este limite, se sancionaran los delitos
por separado." (Rodriguez Navarro, Doctrino Penal del Tribunal Supremo, Vol. II, presumed that the object of Article 48, in its entirvty, is only one. We cannot
p. 2163.) assume that the purpose of the lawmaker, at the beginning of the single
and that our Article 48 does not contain the qualification inserted in said sentence of which said article consists, was to favor the accused, and
amendment, restricting the imposition of the penajty for the graver offense that, before the sentence ended, the former had a change of heart and turned
in its maximum period to the case when it does not exceed the sum total of about face against the latter. If the second part of Article 48 had been
the penalties imposable if the acts charged w6re dealt with separately. The meant to be unfavorable to the accused—and, hence, the exact opposite of
absenee of said limitation in our Penal Code does not, to our mind, affect the first part—each would have been placed in separateprovisions, instead
substantially the spirit of said Article 48. Indeed, if oiie act constitutes two of in one single article. If the first part sought to impose, upon the culprit,
or more offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a punishment graver than a penalty less grave than that which he would deserve if the two or more
that prescribed for each one of said offenses put together. In directing that offenses resulting from his single act were punished separately, then this,
the penalty for the graver off ense be, in such case, imposed in its maximum also, must be the purpose of the second part, in dealiiig with an offense
period, Article 48 could have had no other purpose than to prescribe a which is a necessary means f or the commission of another.
544
penalty lower than the aggregate of the
544 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
________________ People vs. Hernandez, et al
The accuracy of this conclusion is borne out by the fact that, since 1850, when
3Sve, also the comentarios el C6digo Penal, by A. Quintano Ripolles (Vol. I, pp. 396-397)
and Derecho Penal, by Federico Puig Pena (Vol. I, p. 289).
the counterpart of our Article 48 was inserted in the Penal Code of Spain, or
543 for over a century, it does not appear to have been applied by the Supreme
VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 543 Court thereof to crimes of murder committed in furtherance of an
People vs. Hernandez, et al. insurrection.
penalties for each offense, if imposed separately. The reason for this Tncidentally, we cannot accept the explanation that crimes committed
benevolent spirit of Article 48 is readily discernible. When two or more as a means necessary for the success of a rebellion had to be prosecuted
crimes are the result of a single act, the oflfender is deemed ,less perverse separately under the provisions of Article 259 of the Penal Code of Spain,
than when he commits said crimes thru separate and distinct acts. Instead which is the counterpart of Article 244 of our old Penal Code. To begin with,
of sentencing him for each crime independently from the other, he must these articles are part of a substantive law. They do not govern the manner
suffer the maximum of the penalty for the more serious one, on the or method of prosecution of the culprits. Then again, said precepts ordain
assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate penalties that common crimes committed during a rebellion or sedition, or on the
for each offense. occasion thereof, "shall be respectively punished according to the provisions
Did the framers of Article 48 have a different purpose in dealing therein of this Code." Among such provisions was Article 90 (later Article 71, then
with an offense which is a means necessary for the commission of another? Article 75) of the Spanish Penal Code, and Article 89 of our old Penal Code,
To begin with, the culprit can not, then, be considered as displaying a of which Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines is a
substantial reproduction. Hence, had the Supreme Court of Spain or the offense is an essential element of the other. At any rate, as regards this phase
Philippines believed that murders committed as a means necessary to of the issue, which was not touched in the Cabrera cases, the rule therein
attain the aims of an uprising were "common" crimes, the same would have laid down must necessarily be considered modified by our decision in the
been complexed with the rebellion or sedition, as the case may be. cases of People vs. Labra(46 Off. Gaz., Supp. No. 1, p. 159)
The cases of People vs. Cabrera (43 Phil., 64) and Peopte vs. Cabrera (43 and Crisologo vs. People and Villalobos (supra,), insofar as inconsistent
Phil., 82) have not escaped our attention. Those cases involved members of therewith.
the constabulary who rose publicly, for the purpose of performing acts of The main argument in support of the theory seeking to complex rebellion
hate and vengeance upon the police force of Manila, and in an encounter with murder and other offenses is that "war"—within the purview of the
with the latter, killed some members thereof. Charged with and convicted laws on rebellion and sedition—may be "waged" or "levied" without killing.
of sedition in the first case, they were accused of murder in the second case. 546
They pleaded double jeopardy in the second case, upon the ground that the 546 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
facts alleged in the information were those set forth in the charge in the People vs. Hernandez, et al.
first case, in which they had This premise does not warrant, however, the conclusion—drawn
545 therefrom—that any killing done in furtherance of a rebellion or sedition is
VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 545 independent therefrom, and may be complexed therewith, upon the ground
People vs. Hernandez, et al. that destruction of human life is not indispensable to the waging or levying
been convicted. This plea was rejected upon the ground that the organic law of war. A person may kill anothsr without inflicting physical injuries upon
prohibited double jeopardy for the same offense, and that the offense of the latter, such, for instance, as by poisoining, drowning, suffocation or
sedition is distinct and different f rom that of murder, although both were shock. Yet it is admitted that he who f atally stabs another cannot be
the result of the same act. convieted of homicide with physical injuries. So too, it is undeniable that
The question whether one offense was inherent in, or identified with, the treason may be committed without torturing or murdering anybody. Yet, it
other was not discussed or even considered in said cases. Besides, the lower is well-settled that a citizen who gives aid and comfort to the enemy by
court applied,in the murder case Article 89 of the old Penal Code—which is taking direct part in the maltreatment and assassination of his (citizen's)
the counterpart of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code—but this countrymen, in furtherance of the wishes of said enemy, is guilty of plain
Court refused to do so. Again, simply because one act may constitute two or treason, not complexed with murder or physical injuries, the later being—
more offenses, it does not follow necessarily that a person may be as charged and proven—mere ingredients of the former. Now then, if
prosecuted for one after conviction for the other, without violating the homicide may be an ingredient of treason, why can it not be an ingredient
injunction against double jeopardy. For instance, if a man fires a shotgun of rebellion? The proponents of the idea of rebellion complexed with
at another, who suffers thereby several injuries, one of which produced his homicide, etc., have not even tried to answer this question. Neither have
death, may he, after conviction for murder or homicide, based upon said they assailed the wisdom of our aforementioned decisions in treason cases.
fatal injury, be accused or convicted, in a separate case, for the non-fatal The Court is conscious of the keen interest displayed, and the
injuries sustained by the victim? Or may the former be convicted of the considerable efforts exerted, by the Executive Department in the
complex crime of murder or homicide with serious and/or less serious apprehension and prosecution of those believed to be guilty of crimes
physical injuries? The mere formulation of these questions suffices to show against public order, of the lives lost, and the time and money spent in
that the limitation of the rule on double jeopardy to a subsequent connection therewith, as well as of the possible implicatlons or
prosecution for the same offense does not constitute a license for the repercussions in the security of the State. The careful consideration given
separate prosecution of two offenses resulting from the same act, if one to said policy of a coordinate and coequal branch of the Government is
reflected in the time consumed, the extensive and intensive research work 548
undertaken, and the many meetings held by the members of the court for 548 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
the purpose of elucidating on the question under discussion and of settling People vs. Hernandez, et al.
the same. more than ten (10) years and a fine not exceeding $10,000, or F20,000, for
547 "every person who incites, sets on foot, assists or engages in any rebellion
VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 547 or insurrection * * * or who gives aid and comfort to any one so engaging in
People vs. Hernandez, et al. such rebellion or insurrection." Such liberal attitude was adhered to by the
The role of the judicial department under the Constitution is, however, authors of the Revised Penal Code. The penalties therein are substantially
clear—to settle justiceable controversies by the application of the law. And identical to those prescribed in Act 292. Although the Revised Penal Code
the latter must be enf orced as it is—with all its flaws and def ects, not increased slightly the penalty of imprisonment for the promoters,
affecting its validity—not as the judges would have it. In other words, the maintainers and leaders of the uprising, as well as for public officers joining
courts must apply the policy of the State as set forth m its laws, regardless the same, to a maximum not exceeding twelve (12) years of prision mayor, it
of the wisdom thereof. reduced the penalty of imprisonment for mere participants to not more than
It is evident to us that the policy of our statutes on rebellion is to consider eight (8) years of prision mayor, and eliminated the fine.
all acts committed in furtherance thereof—as specified in Articles 134 and This benign mood of the Revised Penal Code becomes more significant
135 of the Revised Penal Code—as constituting only one crime, punishable when we bear in mind it was approved on December 8, 1930 and became
with one single penalty—namely, that prescribed in said Article 135. It is effective on January 1, 1932. At that time the communists in the
interesting to note, in this connection, that the penalties provided in our old Philippines had already given ample proof of their widespread activities
Penal Code (Articles 230 to 232) were much stiffer, namely: and of their designs and potentialities. Prior thereto, they had been under
surveillance by the agents of the law, who gathered evidence of their
1. 1.Life imprisonment to death—for the promoters, maintainers and leaders subversive movements, culminating in the prosecution of Evangelista,
ol the rebellion, and, also, for subordinate officers who held positions of Manahan (57 Phil., 354; 57 Phil., 372), Capadocia (57 Phil., 364), Feleo (57
authority, either civil or ecclesiastical, if the pufpose of the movement was PhiL, 451), Nabong (57 Phil., 455), and others. In fact, the first information
to proclaim the independence of any portion of the Philippine territory; against the first two alleged that they committed the crime of inciting to
2. 2.Reclusion temporal in its maximum period—for said promoters,
sedition "on and during the month of November, 1930, and for sometime
maintainers and leaders of the insurrection, and for its subordinate
officers, if the purpose of the rebellion was any of those enumerated in
prior and subsequent thereto."
Article 229, except that mentioned in the preceding paragraph; As if this were not enough, the very Constitution adopted in 1935,
3. 3.Rechtswn temporal: (a) for subordinate officers other than those already incorporated a formal and solemn declaration (Article II, section 5)
adverted to; and (&) for mere participants in the rebellion f alling under committing the Commonwealth, and, then the Republic of the Philippines,
the first paragraph of No. 2 of Article 174; and to the "promotion of social justice". Soon later, Commonwealth Act No. 103,
4. 4.Prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum creating the Court of Industrial Relations, was passed.
period—for participants not falling under No. 3. 549
VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 549
After the cession of the Philippines to the United States, the rigors of the People vs. Hernandez, et al.
old Penal Code were tempered. Its aforementioned provisions were Then followed a number of other statutes implementing said constitutional
superseded by section 3 of Act No. 292, which reduced the penalty to mandate. It is not necessary to go into the details of said legislative
imprisonment f or not enactments. Suffice it to say that the same are predicated upon a
recognition of the f act that a good many of the problems confronting the conminaron perdieron gran parte de su antigua dureza, sino que en algunos paises
State are due to social and economic evils, and that, unless the latter are se creo un regimen penal mas suave para estos delicuentes, en otros se abolio para
removed or, least minimized, the former will keep on harrassing the ellos la pena de muerte. Tan profundo contraste eiitre el antiguo y el actual
community and affecting the wellbeing of its members. tratamiento de la criminalidad politica en la mayoria de los paises solo puede ser
explicado por las ideas nacidas y difundidas bajo los regimenes politicos liberales
Thus, the settled policy of our laws on rebellion, since the begining of the
acerca de estos delitos y delincuentes. Por una parte se ha afirmado que la
century, has been one of decided leniency, in comparison with the laws
criminalidad de estos heqhos no contiene la misma inmoralidad que la
enforce during the Spanish regime. Such policy has not suffered the delincuencia comuri, que es tan solo relativa, que depende del tiempo, del lugar,
slightest alteration. Although the Government has, for the past five or six de las circumstandias, de las instituciones del pais. Otros invocan la elevacion de
years, adopted a more vigorous course of action in the apprehension of los moviles y sentimientos determinantes de estos hechos, el amor a la patria, la
violators of said law and in their pwsecution, the established policy of the adhesion ferviente a determinadas ideas o principios, el espiritu de sacrificio por
State, as regards the punishment of the culprits has remained unchanged el triunfo de tm ideal.
since 1932. It is not for us to consider the merits and demerits of such policy. "Contra su trato benevolo, del que no pocas veces se han beneficiado peligrosos
This falls within the province of the policy-making branch of the malhechores, se ha iniciado hace algun tiempo una fuerte reaccion (vease Cap. XV,
government—the Congress of the Philippines. However, the following 3.°, b), que llego a alcanzar considerable severidad en las legislaciones de tipo
quotation from Cuello Calon indicates the schools of thought on this subject .autoritario, y que tambien ha hallado eco, en forma mas suave, en las de otros
paises de constitucion democratica en los que, especialmente en los ultimos aiios,
and the reason that may have influenced our lawmakers in making their
la frecuencia de agitaciones politicas y sociales ha originado la publicacion de
choice:
numerosas leyes encaminadas a la proteccion penal del Estado." (Cuello Calon,
"Durante muchos siglos, hasta tiempos relativamente cercanos, se reputaban los
Derecho Penal, Tomo 1, pp. 250-252.)
hechos que hoy llamaxnos delitos politicos como mas graves y peligrosos que los
Such evils as may result from the failure of the policy of the
crimenes comunes. Se consideraba que mientras estos solo causan un dafio
individual, aquellos producen profundas perturbaciones en fla vida collectiva law punishing the offense to dovetail with the policy of the law enforcing
llegando a poner en peligro la mis/ma vida del Estado. En consonancia con estas agencies in the apprehension and prosecutionof the off'enders are matters
ideas fueron reprimidos con extraordinaria severidad y designados con la which may be brought to the attention of the departments concerned. The
denominacion romana de delitos de lesa majestad se catalogaron en las leyes judicial branch can not amend the former in order to suit the latter. The
penales como los crimenes mas temibles. Court cannot indulge in judicial legislation without violating the principle
"Pero desde hace poco mds de un siglo se ha realizado en este punto una transf of separation of powers, and, hence, undermining the foundation of our
ormacion profunda merced a la cual la delincuencia politica dejo de apreciarse con republican system. In short, we cannot accept the theory of the prosecution
los severos criterios de antano quedando sometida a un regimen penal, por regla without causing much bigger harm than
general suave y benevolo. 551
550 VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 551
550 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED Peopte vs. Hernandez, et al.
People vs. Hernandez, et al. that which would allegedly result f rom the adoption of the opposite view.
"El origen de este cambio se remonta, segun opinion muy difundida, a la revolucion
In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations of the amended
que tuvo lugar en Francia en el ano 1830. El gobierno de Luis Felipe establecio
information against defendant-appellant Amado V. Hernandez, the
una honda separacion entre los delitos comunes y los politicos, siendo estos
sometidos a una penalidad mas suave y sus autores exceptuados de la extradicion. murders, arsons and robberies described therein are mere ingredients of the
Irradiando a otros paises tuvieron estas tan gran difusion que en casi todos los de crime of rebellion allegedly committed by said defendants, as means
regimen liberal-individualista se ha llegado a crear un tratamiento desprovisto de "necessary" (4) for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion; that the
severidad para la represion de estos hechos. No solo las penas con que se crime charged in the aforementioned amended information is, therefore,
simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, has been toward a fair and liberal appreciation, rather than otherwise, of the
arsons and robberies; that the maximum penalty imposable under such evidence in the determination of the degree of proof and presumption of guilt
charge cannot exceed twelve (12) years of prisidn mayor and a fine of necessary to warrant a deprivation of that right."
F20,000; and that, in conformity with the policy of this court in dealing with
* * *
accused persons amenable to a similar punishment, said defendant may
may be allowed bail. "In the evaluation of the evidence the probability of flight is one other important
It is urged that, in the exercise of its discretion, the Court should deny factor to be taken into account. The sole purpose of confining accused in jail before
the motion under consideration, because the security of the State so conviction, it has been obseryed, is to assure his presence at the trial. In other
requires, and because the judgment of conviction appealed from indicates words, if denial of bail is authorized in capital cases, it is only on the theory that
that the evidence of guilt of Amado V. Hernandez is strong. However, as the prOof being strong, the defendant would flee, if he has the opportunity, rather
held in a resolution of this court, dated January 29, 1953, in the case than face the verdict of the jury. Hence, the exception to the fundamental right to
of Montano vs. Ocampo (G. R. L-6352): be bailed should be applied in direct ratio to the extent of the probability of evasion
"* * * to deny bail it is not enough that the evidence of guilt is strong; it must also of prosecution.
appear that in case of conviction the defendant's criminal liability would probably "The possibility of escape in this case, bearing in mind the defendant's official
call for a capital punishment. No clear or conclusive showing before this Court has and social standing and his other personal circumstances, seems remote if not nil."
been made." This view applies f ully to Amado V. Hernandez, with the particularity that
In fact, in the case at bar, defendant Amado V. Hernandez was sentenced there is an additional circumstance in his favor—he has been detained since
by the lower court, not to the extreme penalty, but to life January 1951, or for more than five (5) years, and it may still take some
imprisonment. Furthermore, individual f reedom is too basic, too time to dispose of the case, for the same has not been, and is not in a position
transcendental and vital in a republican state, like ours, to be denied upon to be, included, as yet, in our calendar, inasmuch as the briefs for some
mere general principles and abstract consideration of public safety. Indeed, appellants—other than Hernandez—as well as the brief for the
the preservation of liberty is such a major preoccupation of our political Government, are pending submission. It should be noted, also, that the
system that, not satisfied decision appealed from the opposition to the motion in question do not
reveal satisfactorily and concrete, positive
________________ 553
VOL. 99, JULY 18, 1956 553
4In the language of the information.
552
People vs. Hernandez, et al.
552 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED act of the accused showing, sufficiently, that his provincial release, during
People vs. Hernandez, et al. the pendency of the appeal, would jeopardize the security of the State.
Wherefore, the aforementioned motion for bail of defendant-appellant
with guaranteeing its enjoyment in the very first paragraph of section (1)
Amado V. Hernandez is hereby granted and, upon the filing of a bond, with
of the Bill of Rights, the framers of our Constitution devoted paragraphs
sufficient sureties, in the sum of P30,000, and its approval by the court, let
(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), and (21) of
said defendant-appellant be provisionally released. Is is so ordered.
said section (1) to^ the protection of several aspects of freedom. Thus,, in
Parás, C. J., Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo and Reyes. J. B. L., JJ., concur.
line with the letter and spirit of the fundamental law, we said in the
Bengzon, J., concurs in the result.
aforementioned case of Montano vs.Ocampo:
"Exclusion from bail in capital offenses being an exception to the otherwise
PADILLA, J., dissenting:
absolute right guaranteed by the constitution, the natural tendency of the courts
Amado V. Hernandez and others were charged in the Court of First SEC. 7. Capital offenses—burden of proof.—On the hearing of an applieation
Instance of Manila with the crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons for admission to bail made by any person who is in custody for the eommission of
and robberies. The body of the information charged that he and his co- a capital offense, the burd'en of showing that evidence of guilt is strong is on the
defendants conspired and that "as a necessary means to commit the crime prosecution.
SEC. 13. Bail on appeal.—Bail upon appeal must conform in all respects as
of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof," "have then
provided for in other cases of bail.
and there committed acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and
According to this Rule, a defendant in a criminal case after a judgment of
planned destruction of private and public property to create and spread
conviction by the Justice of the Peace Court and before conviction by the
chaos, disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate the accomplishment of
Court of First Instance is entitled to bail. After conviction by the Court of
the aforesaid purpose," and recited the different crimes committed by the
First Instance he, upon application, may still be bailed in non-capital
defendants. After trial Amado V. Hernandez was found guilty and
offenses but at the discretion of the court. When the information charges a
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment from which judgment and sentence
capital offense the defendant is not entitled to bail if the evidence of his
he appealed. The appeal is pending in this Court.
guilt is strong. Of course this means before conviQtion. After conviction for
Upon the ground that there is no complex crime of rebellion with murder,
a capital offense, the defendant has absolutely no right to bail, because even
the penalty provided for to be imposed upon persons found guilty of
before conviction a defendant charged with capital offense is not entitled to
rebellion being prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000 only, the 1
by the single intent or resolution to commit the crime of rebellion. As held in People
JUAN PONCE ENRILE, petitioner, vs. HON. OMAR U. AMIN, Presiding
v. Hernandez,supra: “In short, political crimes are those directly aimed against the
Judge of Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 135, HON. IGNACIO M. political order, as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve
CAPULONG, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch a political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive.”
134, Pairing Judge, SPECIAL COMPOSITE TEAM of: Senior State Same; Same; Same; Same; The act of harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is
Prosecutor AURELIO TRAMPE, State Prosecutor FERDINAND a mere component of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion, it
ABESAMIS and Asst. City Prosecutor EULOGIO MANANQUIL; and cannot therefore be made the basis of a separate charge.—The crime of rebellion
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. consists of many acts. It is described as a vast movement of men and a complex
Criminal Law; Rebellion; Pres. Decree 1829; Rebellion cannot be complexed net of intrigues and plots. (People v. Almasan [CA] O.G. 1932). Jurisprudence tells
with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof either as a means us that acts committed in furtherance of the rebellion though crimes in themselves
necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes are deemed absorbed in the one single crime of rebellion. (People v. Geronimo, 100
rebellion.—The resolution of the above issue brings us anew to the case of People Phil. 90 [1956]; People v. Santos, 104 Phil. 551 [1958]; People v. Rodriguez, 107
v. Hernandez (99 Phil. 515 [1956]) the rulings of which were recently repeated in Phil. 659 [1960]; People v. Lava, 28 SCRA 72 [1969]). In this case, the act of
the petition for habeas corpus of Juan Ponce Enrile v. Judge Salazar, (G.R. Nos. harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is clearly a mere component or ingredient of
92163 and 92164, June 5, 1990). The Enrile case gave this Court the occasion to rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot therefore be made
reiterate the long standing proscription against splitting the component offenses the basis of a separate charge. The case of People v. Prieto(80 Phil., 138 [1948]) is
of rebellion and subjecting them to separate prosecutions, a procedure reprobated instructive: “In the nature of things, the giving of aid and comfort can only be
in the Hernandez case. This Court recently declared: “The rejection of both options accomplished by some kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical
shapes and determines the primary ruling of the Court, which is activity as opposed to a mental operation. (Cramer v. U.S., ante) This deed or
that Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of physical activity may be, and often is, in itself a criminal offense under another
rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a penal statute or provision. Even so, when the deed is charged as an element of
means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that treason it becomes identified with the latter crime and can not be the subject of a
constitutes rebellion.”(Emphasis supplied) This doctrine is applicable in the case separate punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty
at bar. If a person can not be charged with the complex crime of rebellion for the as article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides. Just as one can not be punished
greater penalty to be applied, neither can he be charged separately for two (2) for possessing opium in a prosecution for smoking the identical drug, and a robber
different offenses where one is a constitutive or component element or committed cannot be held guilty of coercion or trespass to a dwelling in a prosecution for
in furtherance of rebellion. robbery, because possession of opium and force and trespass are inherent in
Same; Same; Same; Same; Political Crimes; Political crimes are those directly smoking and in robbery respectively, so may not a defendant be made liable for
aimed against the political order, as well as such com- murder as a separate crime or in conjunction with another offense where, as in
this case, it is averred as a constitutive ingredient of treason.”
_______________ 575
VOL.189, SEPTEMBER13, 1990 575
*EN BANC.
574 Ponce Enrile vs. Amin
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Same; Same; Same; Same; All crimes, whether punishable under a special
law or general law, which are mere components or ingredients, or committed in
Ponce Enrile vs. Amin
furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be
mon crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose.—The
isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves.—The prosecution tries to
petitioner is now facing charges of rebellion in conspiracy with the fugitive Col.
distinguish by contending that harboring or concealing a fugitive is punishable named accused, having reasonable ground to believe or suspect that Ex-Col.
under a special law while the rebellion case is based on the Revised Penal Code; Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan has committed a crime, did then and there unlawfully,
hence, prosecution under one law will not bar a prosecution under the other. This feloniously, willfully and knowingly obstruct, impede, frustrate or delay the
argument is specious in rebellion cases. In the light of the Hernandez doctrine the apprehension of said Ex. Lt. Col. Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan by harboring or
prosecution’s theory must fail. The rationale remains the same. All crimes, concealing him in his house.”
whether punishable under a special law or general law, which are mere On March 2, 1990, the petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion (a) to hold in
components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed abeyance the issuance of a warrant of arrest pending personal
in the crime of rebellion and can not be isolated and charged as separate crimes in determination by the court of probable cause, and (b) to dismiss the case
themselves. Thus: “This does not detract, however, from the rule that the and expunge the information from the record.
ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof, and hence, are absorbed by
On March 16, 1990, respondent Judge Ignacio Capulong, as pairing
the same and cannot be punished either separately therefrom or by the application
judge of respondent Judge Omar Amin, denied Senator Enrile’s Omnibus
of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. xxx (People v. Hernandez, supra, at p. 528)
The Hernandez and other related cases mention common crimes as absorbed in motion on the basis of a finding that “there (was) probable cause to hold the
the crime of rebellion. These common crimes refer to all acts of violence such as accused Juan Ponce Enrile liable for violation of PD No. 1829.”
murder, arson, robbery, kidnapping etc. as provided in the Revised Penal Code. On March 21, 1990, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and
The attendant circumstances in the instant case, however, constrain us to rule to Quash/Dismiss the Information on the grounds that:
that the theory of absorption in rebellion cases must not confine itself to common
crimes but also to offenses under special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance 1. (a)The facts charged do not constitute an offense;
of the political offense. 2. (b)The respondent court’s finding of probable cause was devoid of factual
and legal basis; and
PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Regional Trial Court 3. (c)The pending charge of rebellion complexed with murder and frustrated
of Makati, Metro Manila, Br. 135 and 134. murder against Senator Enrile as alleged co-conspirator of Col. Honasan,
on the basis of their alleged meeting on December 1, 1989 preclude the
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. prosecution of the Senator for harboring or concealing the Colonel on the
Ponce Enrile, Cayetano, Reyes & Manalastas Law Offices for same occasion under PD 1829.
petitioner.
On May 10, 1990, the respondent court issued an order denying the motion
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: for reconsideration for alleged lack of merit and setting Senator Enrile’s
arraignment to May 30, 1990.
Together with the filing of an information charging Senator Juan Ponce The petitioner comes to this Court on Certiorari imputing grave abuse of
Enrile as having committed rebellion complexed with murder with the Regional Trial
1
discretion amounting to lack or excess of juris-
Court of Quezon City,
577
576
VOL. 189, SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 577
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ponce Enrile vs. Amin
Ponce Enrile vs. Amin
diction committed by the respondent court in refusing to quash/ dismiss the
government prosecutors filed another information charging him for information on the following grounds, to wit:
violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 with the Regional Trial Court of
Makati. The second information reads: 1. I.The facts charged do not constitute an offense;
“That on or about the lst day of December 1989, at Dasmariñas Village, Makati,
Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
2. II.The alleged harboring or concealing by Sen. Enrile of Col. Honasan in a either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an
supposed meeting on 1 December 1989 is absorbed in, or is a component activity that constitutes rebellion.” (Emphasis supplied)
element of, the “complexed” rebellion presently charged against Sen. This doctrine is applicable in the case at bar. If a person can not be charged
Enrile as alleged co-conspirator of Col. Honasan on the basis of the same with the complex crime of rebellion for the greater penalty to be applied,
meeting on 1 December 1989; neither can he be charged separately for two (2) different offenses where
3. III.The orderly administration of Justice requires that there be only one one is a constitutive or component element or committed in furtherance of
prosecution for all the component acts of rebellion;
rebellion.
4. IV.There is no probable cause to hold Sen. Enrile for trial for alleged
The petitioner is presently charged with having violated PD No. 1829
violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829;
5. V.No preliminary investigation was conducted for alleged violation of particularly Section 1 (c) which states:
Presidential Decree No. 1829. The preliminary investigation, held only for “SECTION 1. The penalty of prison correccional in its maximum period, or a fine
rebellion, was marred by patent irregularities resulting in denial of due ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who
process. knowingly or wilfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of
suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing
any of the following acts:
On May 20, 1990 we issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the
xxx xxx xxx
respondents from conducting further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90- (c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows,
777 until otherwise directed by this Court. or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under
The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the petitioner could be existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction.”
separately charged for violation of PD No. 1829 notwithstanding the xxx xxx xxx
rebellion case earlier filed against him. The prosecution in this Makati case alleges that the petitioner entertained
Respondent Judge Amin sustained the charge of violation of PD No. 1829 and accommodated Col. Honasan by giving him food and comfort on
notwithstanding the rebellion case filed against the petitioner on the theory December 1, 1989 in his house. Knowing that Colonel Honasan is a fugitive
that the former involves a special law while the latter is based on the from justice, Sen. Enrile allegedly did not do anything to have Honasan
Revised Penal Code or a general law. arrested or apprehended. And because of such failure the petitioner
The resolution of the above issue brings us anew to the case of People v. prevented Col. Honasan’s arrest and conviction in violation of Section 1 (c)
Hernandez (99 Phil. 515 [1956]) the rulings of which were recently repeated of PD No. 1829.
in the petition for habeas corpus of Juan Ponce Enrile v. Judge The rebellion charges filed against the petitioner in Quezon City were
Salazar, (G.R. Nos. 92163 and 92164, June 5, 1990). The Enrile case gave based on the affidavits executed by three (3) employees of the Silahis
this Court the occasion to reiterate the long standing proscription against International Hotel who stated that the fugitive Col. Gregorio “Gringo”
splitting the componentoffenses of rebellion and subjecting them to Honasan and some 100 rebel soldiers attended the mass and birthday party
separate prosecutions, a procedure reprobated in the Hernandez case. This held at the residence of the petitioner in the evening of December 1, 1989.
Court recently declared: 579
578 VOL. 189, SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 579
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ponce Enrile vs. Amin
Ponce Enrile vs. Amin The information (Annex “C”, p. 3) particularly reads that on “or about 6:30
“The rejection of both options shapes and determines the primary ruling of the p.m., 1 December, 1989, Col. Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan conferred with
Court, which is that Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the accused Senator Juan Ponce Enrile accompanied by about 100 fully armed
complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof,
rebel soldiers wearing white armed patches”. The prosecution thereby “In the nature of things, the giving of aid and comfort can only be accomplished by
concluded that: some kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as
“In such a situation, Sen. Enrile’s talking with rebel leader Col. Gregorio “Gringo” opposed to a mental operation. (Cramer v. U.S., ante) This deed or physical activity
Honasan in his house in the presence of about 100 uniformed soldiers who were may be, and often is, in itself a criminal offense under another penal statute or
fully armed, can be inferred that they were co-conspirators in the failed December provision. Even so, when the deed is charged as an element of treason it becomes
coup.” (Annex A, Rollo, p. 65; Emphasis supplied) identified with the latter crime and can not be the subject of a separate
As can be readily seen, the factual allegations supporting the rebellion punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty as article
charge constitute or include the very incident which gave rise to the charge 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides. Just as one can not be punished for
possessing opium in a prosecution for smoking the identical drug, and a robber
of the violation under Presidential Decree No. 1829. Under the Department
cannot be held guilty of coercion or trespass to a dwelling in a prosecution for
of Justice resolution (Annex A, Rollo, p. 49) there is only one crime of
robbery, because possession of opium and force and trespass are inherent in
rebellion complexed with murder and multiple frustrated murder but there smoking and in robbery respectively, so may not a defendant be made liable for
could be 101 separate and independent prosecutions for “harboring and murder as a separate crime or in conjunction with another offense where, as in
concealing” Honasan and 100 other armed rebels under PD No. 1829. The this case, it is averred as a constitutive ingredient of treason.”
splitting of component elements is readily apparent. The prosecution tries to distinguish by contending that harboring or
The petitioner is now facing charges of rebellion in conspiracy with the concealing a fugitive is punishable under a special law while the rebellion
fugitive Col. Gringo Honasan. Necessarily, being in conspiracy with case is based on the Revised Penal Code; hence, prosecution under one law
Honasan, petitioner’s alleged act of harboring or concealing was for no other will not bar a prosecution under the other. This argument is specious in
purpose but in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus constituting a rebellion cases.
component thereof. It was motivated by the single intent or resolution to In the light of the Hernandez doctrine the prosecution’s theory must fail.
commit the crime of rebellion. As held in People v. Hernandez, supra: The rationale remains the same. All crimes, whether punishable under a
“In short, political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as special law or general law, which are mere components or ingredients, or
well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion
purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive.” (p. 535)
and can not be
The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is described as a vast
movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. (People v. _______________
Almasan [CA] O.G. 1932). Jurisprudence tells us that acts committed in
2 The doctrine relied upon was set down in treason cases but is applicable to rebellion cases.
furtherance of the rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed
As Justice McDonough opined, rebellion is treason of less magnitude (U.S. v. Lagnoasan, 3 Phil.
absorbed in the one single crime of rebellion. (People v. Geronimo, 100 Phil. 472, 484, 1904).
90 [1956]; 581
580 VOL. 189, SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 581
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ponce Enrile vs. Amin
Ponce Enrile vs. Amin isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves. Thus:
People v. Santos, 104 Phil. 551 [1958]; People v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. “This does not detract, however, from the rule that the ingredients of a crime form
659 [1960]; People v. Lava, 28 SCRA 72 [1969]). In this case, the act of part and parcel thereof, and hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be
harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is clearly a mere component or punished either separately therefrom or by the application of Article 48 of the
ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It Revised Penal Code. xxx (People v. Hernandez, supra, at p. 528)
cannot therefore be made the basis of a separate charge. The case of People The Hernandez and other related cases mention common crimes as
v. Prieto (80 Phil., 138 [1948]) is instructive:
2 absorbed in the crime of rebellion. These common crimes refer to all acts of
violence such as murder, arson, robbery, kidnapping etc. as provided in the Noteworthy is the recent case of Misolas v. Panga, (G.R. No. 83341,
Revised Penal Code. The attendant circumstances in the instant case, January 30, 1990) where the Court had the occasion to pass upon a nearly
however, constrain us to rule that the theory of absorption in rebellion cases similar issue. In this case, the petitioner Misolas, an alleged member of the
must not confine itself to common crimes but also to offenses under special New Peoples Army (NPA), was charged with illegal possession of firearms
laws which are perpetrated in furtherance of the political offense. and ammunitions in furtherance of subversion under Section 1 of PD 1866.
The conversation and, therefore, alleged conspiring of Senator Ponce In his motion to quash the information, the petitioner based his arguments
Enrile with Colonel Honasan is too intimately tied up with his allegedly on the Hernandez and Geronimo rulings on the doctrine of absorption of
harboring and concealing Honasan for practically the same act to form two common crimes in rebellion. The Court, however, clarified, to wit:
separate crimes of rebellion and violation of PD No. 1829. “x x x in the present case, petitioner is being charged specifically for the qualified
Clearly, the petitioner’s alleged act of harboring or concealing which was offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under PD 1866. HE IS
based on his acts of conspiring with Honasan was committed in connection NOT BEING CHARGED WITH THE COMPLEX CRIME OF SUBVERSION
with or in furtherance of rebellion and must now be deemed as absorbed by, WITH ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS. NEITHER IS HE BEING
SEPARATELY CHARGED FOR SUBVERSION AND FOR ILLEGAL
merged in, and identified with the crime of rebellion punished in Articles
POSSESSION OF FIREARMS. Thus, the rulings of the Court in Hernandez,
134 and 135 of the RPC.
Geronimo and Rodriguez find no application in this case.”
“Thus, national, as well as international, laws and jurisprudence overwhelmingly
The Court in the above case upheld the prosecution for illegal possession of
favor the proposition that common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political
offense, are divested of their character as “common” offenses, and assume the firearms under PD 1866 because no separate prosecution for subversion or
political complexion of the main crime of which they are mere ingredients, and rebellion had been filed.3 The prosecution must make up its mind whether
consequently, cannot be punished separately from the principal offense, or to charge Senator
complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of a graver penalty.” (People v.
_______________
Hernandez, supra, p. 541)
In People v. Elias Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659 [1960], the accused, after having 3 Justices Isagani A. Cruz and Abraham F. Sarmiento believe that PD 1866 is
pleaded guilty and convicted of the crime of rebellion, faced an independent unconstitutional and should be struck down as illegal
prosecution for illegal posses- 583
582 VOL.189, SEPTEMBER13, 1990 583
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ponce Enrile vs. Amin
Ponce Enrile vs. Amin Ponce Enrile with rebellion alone or to drop the rebellion case and charge
sion of firearms. The Court ruled: him with murder and multiple frustrated murder and also violation of P.D.
“An examination of the record, however, discloses that the crime with which the 1829. It cannot complex the rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
accused is charged in the present case which is that of illegal possession of firearm murder. Neither can it prosecute him for rebellion in Quezon City and
and ammunition is already absorbed as a necessary element or ingredient in the violation of P.D 1829 in Makati. It should be noted that there is in fact a
crime of rebellion with which the same accused is charged with other persons in a separate prosecution for rebellion already filed with the Regional Trial
separate case and wherein he pleaded guilty and was convicted.” (at page 662)
Court of Quezon City. In such a case, the independent prosecution under
xxx xxx xxx
“xxx [T]he conclusion is inescapable that the crime with which the accused is
PD 1829 can not prosper.
charged in the present case is already absorbed in the rebellion case and so to As we have earlier mentioned, the intent or motive is a decisive factor.
press it further now would be to place him in double jeopardy.” (at page 663) If Senator Ponce Enrile is not charged with rebellion and he harbored or
concealed Colonel Honasan simply because the latter is a friend and former
associate, the motive for the act is completely different. But if the act is
committed with political or social motives, that is in furtherance of
rebellion, then it should be deemed to form part of the crime of rebellion
instead of being punished separately.
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner can not be tried separately under
PD 1829 in addition to his being prosecuted in the rebellion case. With this
ruling, there is no need for the Court to pass upon the other issues raised
by the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Information in Criminal
Case No. 90-777 is QUASHED. The writ of preliminary injunction,
enjoining respondent Judges and their successors in Criminal Case No. 90-
777, Regional Trial Court of Makati, from holding the arraignment of Sen.
Juan Ponce Enrile and from conducting further proceedings therein is made
permanent.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Melencio-
Herrera, Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortés, Gri
ño-Aquinoand Regalado, JJ., concur.
Fernan (C.J.), On official leave.
Paras, J., On leave.
_______________
per se. Justice Sarmiento stated in his separate dissent that PD 1866 is a bill of attainder,
vague and violative of the double jeopardy clause, and an instrument of repression.
584
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Arizala vs. Court of Appeals
Medialdea, J., No part.
Petition granted.
Note.—The criminal liability of an accessory under Art. 19, Par. 3 is
directly linked to and inseparable from that of the principal. (Vino vs.
People: dissenting opinion, 178 SCRA 626.)
———o0o———
the prosecutor. Petitioner claims that the warrant of arrest issued barely one hour
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS. JUAN
and twenty minutes after the case was raffled off to the respondent Judge, which
PONCE ENRILE, petitioner, vs. JUDGE JAIME SALAZAR (Presiding hardly gave the latter sufficient time to personally go over the voluminous records
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City [Br. 103], SENIOR STATE of the preliminary investigation. Merely because said respondent had what some
PROSECUTOR AURELIO TRAMPE, PROSECUTOR FERDINAND R. might consider only a relatively brief period within which to comply with that duty,
ABESAMIS, AND CITY ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR EULOGIO gives no reason to assume that he had not, or could not have, so complied; nor does
MANANQUIL, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DIRECTOR that single circumstance suffice to overcome the legal presumption that official
ALFREDO LIM, BRIG. GEN. EDGAR DULA TORRES (Superintendent of duty has been regularly performed.
the Northern Police District) AND/ OR ANY AND ALL PERSONS WHO Same; Same; Same; Bail; Courts; Respondent Court has jurisdiction to deny
MAY HAVE ACTUAL CUSTODY OVER THE PERSON OF JUAN PONCE or grant bail to petitioner.—The criminal case before the respondent Judge was
ENRILE, respondents. the normal venue for invoking the petitioner’s right to have provisional liberty
pending trial and judgment. The original jurisdiction to grant or deny bail rested
G.R. No. 92164. June 5, 1990. *
with said respondent. The correct course was for petitioner to invoke that
SPS. REBECCO E. PANLILIO ANDERLINDA E. PANLILIO,
jurisdiction by filing a petition to be admitted to bail, claiming a right to bail per
petitioners, vs. PROSECUTORS FERNANDO DE LEON, AURELIO C. se or by reason of the weakness of the evidence against him. Only after that
TRAMPE, FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS, AND EU- remedy was denied by the trial court should the review jurisdiction of this Court
have been invoked, and even then, not without first apply-
_______________ 219
*EN BANC.
VOL. 186, JUNE 5, 1990 219
218 Enrile vs. Salazar
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ing to the Court of Appeals if appropriate relief was also available there.
Enrile vs. Salazar Same; Same; Same; Same; Incumbent on the accused, to whom no bail is
LOGIO C. MANANQUIL, and HON. JAIME N. SALAZAR, JR., in his recommended, to claim the right to bail hearing to prove the reason or weakness of
evidence against him.—There was and is no reason to assume that the resolution
capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch
of any of these questions was beyond the ability or competence of the respondent
103, respondents. Judge—indeed such an assumption would be demeaning and less than fair to our
Rebellion; Complex Crime; Hernandez doctrine prohibits complexing of trial courts; none whatever to hold them to be of such complexity or transcendental
rebellion with any other offense.—The rejection of both options shapes and importance as to disqualify every court, except this Court, from deciding them;
determines the primary ruling of the Court, which is that Hernandez remains none, in short that would justify bypassing established judicial processes designed
binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other to orderly move litigation through the hierarchy of our courts. Parenthetically, this
offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its is the reason behind the vote of four Members of the Court against the grant of
commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. bail to petitioner: the view that the trial court should not thus be precipitately
Same; Same; Constitutional Law; Personal evaluation of report and ousted of its original jurisdiction to grant or deny bail and, if it erred in that
supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor, sufficient to determine probable matter, denied an opportunity to correct its error. It makes no difference that the
cause.—It is also contended that the respondent Judge issued the warrant for respondent Judge here issued a warrant of arrest fixing no bail. Immemorial
petitioner’s arrest without first personally determining the existence of probable practice sanctions simply following the prosecutor’s recommendation regarding
cause by examining under oath or affirmation the complainant and his witnesses, bail, though it may be perceived as the better course for the judge motu propioto
in violation of Art. III, sec. 2, of the Constitution. This Court has already ruled,
set a bail hearing where a capital offense is charged. It is, in any event, incumbent fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary
on the accused as to whom no bail has been recommended or fixed to claim the and lawless state action. The scope and flexibility of the writ—its capacity to reach
right to a bail hearing and thereby put to proof the strength or weakness of the all manner of illegal detention—its ability to cut through barriers of form and
evidence against him. procedural mazes—have always been emphasized and jealously guarded by courts
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Court has no power to change, but only to and lawmakers (Gumabon v. Director of Bureau of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420) [italics
interpret the law as it stands at any given time.—It is enough to give anyone ours].
pause—and the Court is no exception—that not even the crowded streets of our
capital City seem safe from such unsettling violence that is disruptive of the public FELICIANO, J., Concurring Opinion:
peace and stymies every effort at national economic recovery. There is an apparent
need to restructure the law on rebellion, either to raise the penalty therefor or to Rebellion; Complex Crime; Statutes; Non-retroactivity rule applies to statutes
clearly define and delimit the other offenses to be considered as absorbed thereby, principally; Expost facto law.—The non-retroactivity rule applies to statutes
so that it cannot be conveniently utilized as the umbrella for every sort of illegal principally. But, statutes do not exist in the abstract but rather bear upon the lives
activity undertaken in its name. The Court has no power to effect such change, for of people with the specific form given them by judicial decisions interpreting their
it can only interpret the law as it stands at any given time, and what is needed norms. Judicial decisions construing statutory norms give specific shape and
lies beyond interpretation. Hopefully, Congress will perceive the need for promptly content to such norms. In time, the statutory norms become encrusted with the
the initiative in this matter, which is properly within its province. glosses placed upon them by the courts and the glosses become integral with the
220 norms (Cf. Caltex v. Palomar, 18 SCRA 247 [1966]). Thus, while in legal theory,
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED judicial interpretation of a statute becomes part of the law as of the date that the
Enrile vs. Salazar law was originally
221
FERNAN, C.J., Dissenting and Concurring: VOL. 186, JUNE 5, 1990 221
Enrile vs. Salazar
Rebellion; Complex Crime; Hernandez doctrine should not be interpreted as enacted, I believe this theory is not to be applied rigorously where a new
an all embracing authority; Reasons.—To my mind, the Hernandez doctrine judicial doctrine is announced, in particular one overruling a previous existing
should not be interpreted as an all-embracing authority for the rule that all doctrine of long standing (here, 36 years) and most specially not where the statute
common crimes committed on the occasion, or in furtherance of, or in connection construed is criminal in nature and the new doctrine is more onerous for the
with, rebellion are absorbed by the latter. To that extent, I cannot go along with accused than the pre-existing one (People v. Jabinal, 55 SCRA 607 [19741; People
the view of the majority in the instant case that “Hernandez remains binding v. Licera, 65 SCRA 270 [1975]; Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420
doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense [1971]). Moreover, the non-retroactivity rule whether in respect of legislative acts
committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or judicial decisions has constitutional implications. The prevailing rule in the
or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion.” United States is that a judicial decision that retroactively renders an act criminal
or enhances the severity of the penalty prescribed for an offense, is vulnerable to
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., Separate Opinion: constitutional challenge based upon the rule against ex post facto laws and the due
process clause (Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 US 347, 12 L. Ed. 2d 894 [1964];
Rebellion; Complex Crime; Habeas Corpus; Statutes; The rules on habeas Marks v. U.S., 43 US 188, 51 L. Ed. 2d 260 [1977]; Devine v. New Mexico
corpus are to be liberally construed.—While litigants, should, as a rule, ascend the Department of Corrections, 866 F. 2d 339 [1989]).
steps of the judicial ladder, nothing should stop this Court from taking cognizance
of petitions brought before it raising urgent constitutional issues, any procedural GUTIERREZ, JR., J., Concurring Opinion:
flaw notwithstanding. The rules on habeas corpus are to be liberally construed
(Ganaway v. Quilen, 42 Phil. 805), the writ of habeas corpus being the
Rebellion; Complex Crime; Rebellion consists of many acts; Case at bar.—The void as the information on which they are anchored. And, since the entire question
crime of rebellion consists of many acts. The dropping of one bomb cannot be of the information’s validity is before the Court in these habeas corpus cases, I
isolated as a separate crime of rebellion. Neither should the dropping of one venture to say that the information is fatally defective,even under procedural law,
hundred bombs or the firing of thousands of machine gun bullets be broken up into because it charges more than one (1) offense (Sec. 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court).
a hundred or thousands of separate offenses, if each bomb or each bullet happens
to result in the destruction of life and property. The same act cannot be punishable BIDIN, J., Concurring and Dissenting:
by separate penalties depending on what strikes the fancy of prosecutors—
punishment for the killing of soldiers or retribution for the deaths of civilians. The Rebellion; Complex Crime; Bail; Habeas Corpus is the proper remedy to
prosecution also loses sight of the regrettable fact that in total war and in rebellion petitioner as an accused; Case at bar.—I submit that the proceedings need not be
the killing of civilians, the laying waste of civilian economies, the massacre of remanded to the respondent judge for the purpose of fixing bail since we have
innocent people, the blowing up of passenger airplanes, and other acts of terrorism construed the indictment herein as charging simple rebellion, an offense which is
are all used by those engaged in rebellion. We cannot and should not try to bailable. Consequently, habeas corpus is the proper remedy available to petitioner
ascertain the intent of rebels for each single act unless the act is plainly not as an accused who had been charged with simple rebellion, a bailable offense but
connected to the rebellion. We cannot use Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code in who had been denied his right to bail by the respondent judge in violation of the
lieu of still-to-be-enacted legislation. The killing of civilians during a rebel attack petitioner’s constitutional right to bail. In view thereof, the responsibility of fixing
on military facilities furthers the rebellion and is part of the rebellion. the amount of bail and approval thereof when filed, devolves upon us, if complete
relief is to be accorded to petitioner in the instant proceedings.
PADILLA, J., Separate Opinion:
SARMIENTO, J., Concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Rebellion; Complex yCrime; Crime of Rebellion complexed with murder, and
multiple frustrated murder does not exist.—Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in Rebellion; Complex Crime; Habeas Corpus; Bail; No useful purpose to have
the Hernandez case, was “ground- breaking” on the trial court hear the incident again when the Supreme Court has been satisfied
222 that petitioner is entitled to temporary
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 223
Enrile vs. Salazar VOL. 186, JUNE 5, 1990 223
the issue of whether rebellion can be complexed with murder, arson, robbery, Enrile vs. Salazar
etc. In the present cases, on the other hand, the prosecution and the lower court, freedom.—I dissent, however, insofar as the majority orders the remand of
not only had the Hernandezdoctrine (as case law), but Executive Order No. 187 of the matter of bail to the lower court. I take it that when we, in our Resolution of
President Corazon C. Aquino dated 5 June 1987 (as statutory law) to bind them to March 6, 1990, granted the petitioner “provisional liberty” upon the filing of a bond
the legal proposition that the crime of rebellion complexed with murder, and of P100,000.00, we granted him bail. The fact that we gave him “provisional
multiple frustrated murder does not exist. liberty” is in my view, of no moment, because bail means provisional liberty. It will
Same; Same; Same; Case at bar; The reformation is clearly a nullity and serve no useful purpose to have the trial court hear the incident again when we
plainly void ab initio.—And yet, notwithstanding ourselves have been satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to temporary freedom.
these unmistakable and controlling beacon lights—absent when this Court laid
down the Hernandez doctrine—the prosecution has insisted in filing, and the PETITION for Habeas Corpus.
lower court has persisted in hearing, an information charging the petitioners with
rebellion complexed with murder and multiple frustrated murder. That The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
information is clearly a nullity and plainly void ab initio. Its head should not be
allowed to surface. As a nullity in substantive law, it charges nothing; it has given NARVASA, J.:
rise to nothing. The warrants of arrest issued pursuant thereto are as null and
Thirty-four years after it wrote history into our criminal On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile, through counsel,
jurisprudence, People vs. Hernandez once more takes center stage as the
1 filed the petition for habeas corpus herein (which was followed by a
focus of a confrontation at law that would reexamine, if not the validity of supplemental petition filed on March 2, 1990), alleging that he was
its doctrine, the limits of its applicability. To be sure, the intervening period deprived of his constitutional rights in being, or having been:
saw a number of similar cases that took issue with the ruling—all with a
2
marked lack of success—but none, it would seem, where season and 1. (a)held to answer for criminal offense which does not exist in the statute
circumstance had more effectively conspired to attract wide public attention books;
and excite impassioned debate, even among laymen; none, certainly, which 2. (b)charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no complaint
has seen quite the kind and range of arguments that are now brought to was initially filed or preliminary investigation was conducted, hence was
denied due process;
bear on the same question.
3. (c)denied his right to bail; and
The facts are not in dispute. In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, 4. (d)arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the
Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law judge who issued it first having personally determined the existence of
enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of probable cause. 4
that day filed by a panel of prosecutors composed of filed a consolidated return for the respondents in this case and in G.R. No.
6
_______________
_______________
199 Phil. 515 (1956).
2 People vs. Lava, 28 SCRA 72 (1956); People vs. Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90 (1956); People vs.
3 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, pp. 32-34.
Romagosa, 103 Phil. 20 (1958); and People vs. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659 (1960). 4 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, pp. 34 et seq.
224 5 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, p. 26.
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 6 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, pp. 305-359.
7 Originally a petition for certiorari and prohibition which the Court, upon motion of the
Enrile vs. Salazar
petitioners, resolved to treat as a petition
Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, State Prosecutor Ferdinand R.
225
Abesamis and Assistant City Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., charging VOL. 186, JUNE 5, 1990 225
Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio
Enrile vs. Salazar
Honasan with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
contemporaneously but separately filed by two of Senator Enrile’s co-
murder allegedly committed during the period of the failed coup attempt
accused, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and raised similar
from November 29 to December 10, 1990. Senator Enrile was taken to and
questions. Said return urged that the petitioners’ case does not fall within
held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without
the Hernandez ruling because—and this is putting it very simply—the
bail, none having been recommended in the information and none fixed in
information in Hernandez charged murders and other common crimes
the arrest warrant. The following morning, February 28, 1990, he was
committed as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion, whereas
brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon City where he was given over
the information against Sen. Enrile et al. charged murder and frustrated
to the custody of the Superintendent of the Northern Police District, Brig.
murder committed on the occasion, but not in furtherance, of rebellion.
Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres. 3
upon their filing, within 24 hours from notice, cash or surety bonds of substantive and logical bases have withstood all subsequent challenges and
P100,000.00 (for Senator Enrile) and P200,000.00 (for the Panlilios), no new ones are presented here persuasive enough to warrant a complete
respectively. The Resolution stated that it was issued without prejudice to reversal. This view is reinforced by the fact that not too long ago, the
a more extended resolution on the matter of the provisional liberty of the incumbent President, exercising her powers under the 1986 Freedom
petitioners and stressed that it was not passing upon the legal issues raised Constitution, saw fit to repeal, among others, Presidential Decree No. 942
in both cases. Four Members of the Court voted against granting bail to
9
of the former regime which precisely sought to nullify or
Senator Enrile, and two against granting bail to the Panlilios.
10
neutralize Hernandez by enacting a new provision (Art. 142-A) into the
The Court now addresses those issues insofar as they are raised and Revised Penal Code to the effect that “(w)hen by reason, or on the occasion,
litigated in Senator Enrile’s petition, G.R. No. 92163. of any of the crimes penalized in this Chapter (Chapter I of Title 3, which
The parties’ oral and written pleas presented the Court with the includes rebellion), acts which constitute offenses upon which graver
following options: penalties are imposed by law are committed, the penalty for the most
_______________ serious offense in its maximum period shall be imposed upon the
offender.” In thus acting, the President in effect by legislative fiat
11
for habeas corpus; Rollo, G.R. No. 92164, pp. 128-129. reinstated Hernandez as binding doctrine with the effect of law. The Court
8 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, pp. 407-411.
1. (a)abandon Hernandez and adopt the minority view expressed in the main Executive Order No. 187 issued June 5, 1987.
11
dissent of Justice Montemayor in said case that rebellion cannot absorb 227
more serious crimes, and that under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code VOL. 186, JUNE 5, 1990 227
rebellion may properly be complexed with common offenses, so-called; this Enrile vs. Salazar
option was suggested by the Solicitor General in oral argument although the theory that Hernandez is, or should be, limited in its application to
it is not offered in Ms written pleadings; offenses committed as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion
and that the ruling should not be interpreted as prohibiting the complexing
of rebellion with other common crimes committed on the occasion, but not ‘Cuando la pena asi computada exceda de este limite, se sancionaran los delitos por
in furtherance, thereof While four Members of the Court felt that the séparado.’ (Rodriguez Navarro, Doctrina Penal del Tribunal Supremo, Vol. II, p. 2163)
and that our Article 48 does not contain the qualification inserted in said
proponents’ arguments were not entirely devoid of merit, the consensus was
amendment, restricting the imposition of the penalty for the graver offense in its
that they were not sufficient to overcome what appears to be the real thrust
maximum period to the case when it does not exceed the sum total of the penalties
of Hernandez to rule out the complexing of rebellion with any other offense imposable if the acts charged were dealt with separately. The absence of said
committed in its course under either of the aforecited clauses of Article 48, limitation in our Penal Code does not, to our mind, affect substantially the spirit
as is made clear by the following excerpt from the majority opinion in that of said Article 48. Indeed, if one act constitutes two or more offenses, there can be
case: no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of said
“There is one other reason—and a fundamental one at that—why Article 48 of our offenses put together. In directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in
Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed such case, imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 could have had no other
with rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this purpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the aggregate of the penalties for
could be done), the following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, each offense, if imposed separately. The reason for this benevolent spirit of Article
namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision 48 is readily discernible. When two or more crimes are the result of a single act,
mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon the modifying circumstances the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said crimes thru
present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor; and (2) for the crime of separate and distinct acts. Instead of sentencing him for each crime independently
murder, reclusion temporalin its maximum period to death, depending upon the from the other, he must suffer the maximum of the penalty for the more serious
modifying circumstances present. In other words, in the absence of aggravating one, on the assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate
circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. However, penalties for each offense.” 12
under Article 48 said penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in the The rejection of both options shapes and determines the primary ruling of
absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in the Court, which is that Hernandezremains binding doctrine operating to
conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant. prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on
“Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was enacted for the purpose
the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an
of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty more severe than that
unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion.
which would be proper if the several acts performed toy Mm were punished
separately. In the words of Rodriguez Navarro: This, however, does not write finis to the case. Petitioner’s guilt or
‘La unificacion de penas en los casos de eoncmrso de delitos a que hace referenda este innocence is not here inquired into, much less adjudged. That is for the trial
articulo (75 del Codigo de 1932), esta basado franeamente en el principio pro reo.’ (II court to do at the proper time. The Court’s ruling merely provides a take-
Doctrina Penal del Tribunal Supremo de Espana, p. 2168.) off point for the disposition of
“We are aware of the fact that this observation refers to Article 71 (later 75) of
the Spanish Penal Code (the counterpart of our Article 48), as amended in 1908 ________________
and then in 1932, reading:
228 People vs. Hernandez, supra at 541-543.
12
information against defendant-appellant Amado V. Hernandez, the murders, Court has already ruled, however, that it is not the unavoidable duty of the
arsons and robberies described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of judge to make such a personal examination, it being sufficient that he
rebellion allegedly committed by said defendants, as means “necessary” (4) for the follows established procedure by personally evaluating the report and the
perpetration of said offense of rebellion; that the crime charged in the
supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor. Petitioner claims that
16
defendant may be allowed bail.” 13 might consider only a relatively brief period within which to comply with
The plaint of petitioner’s counsel that he is charged with a crime that does that duty, gives no reason to assume that he had not, or could not have, so
not exist in the statute books, while technically correct so far as the Court complied; nor does that single circumstance suffice to overcome the legal
has ruled that rebellion may not be complexed with other offenses presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.
committed on the occasion thereof, must therefore be dismissed as a mere Petitioner finally claims that he was denied the right to bail. In the light
flight of rhetoric. Read in the context of Hernandez, the information does of the Court’s reaffirmation of Hernandezas applicable to petitioner’s case,
indeed charge the petitioner with a crime defined and punished by the and of the logical an.d necessary corollary that the information against him
Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion. should be considered as charging only the crime of simple rebellion, which
Was the petitioner charged without a complaint having been initially is bailable before conviction, that must now be accepted as a correct
filed and/or preliminary investigation conducted? The record shows proposition. But the question remains: Given the facts from which this case
otherwise, that a complaint against petitioner for simple rebellion was filed arose, was a petition for habeas corpus in this Court the appropriate vehicle
by the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, and that on the for asserting a right to bail or vindicating its denial?
strength of said complaint a preliminary investigation was conducted by
_______________
the respondent prosecutors, culminating in the filing of the ques-
14 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, pp, 78-79 and 73-76.
_______________ 15 Supra, footnote 4.
16 Soliven vs. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 394.
Id., at 551.
13
17 Rollo, G.R. No. 92163, pp. 46-47.
230 231
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 186, JUNE 5, 1990 231
Enrile vs. Salazar Enrile vs. Salazar
tioned information. There is nothing inherently irregular or contrary to
14
The criminal case before the respondent Judge was the normal venue for
law in filing against a respondent an indictment for an offense different invoking the petitioner’s right to have provisional liberty pending trial and
from what is charged in the initiatory complaint, if warranted by the judgment. The original jurisdiction to grant or deny bail rested with said
evidence developed during the preliminary investigation. respondent. The correct course was for petitioner to invoke that jurisdiction
by filing a petition to be admitted to bail, claiming a right to bail per se by issued a warrant of arrest fixing no bail. Immemorial practice sanctions
reason of the weakness of the evidence against him. Only after that remedy simply following the prosecutor’s recommendation regarding bail, though it
was denied by the trial court should the review jurisdiction of this Court may be perceived as the better course for the judge motu proprio to set a
have been invoked, and even then, not without first applying to the Court bail hearing where a capital offense is charged. It is, in any event,
19
of Appeals if appropriate relief was also available there. incumbent on the accused as to whom no bail has been recommended or
Even acceptance of petitioner’s premise that going by fixed to claim the right to a bail hearing and thereby put to proof the
the Hernandez ruling, the information charges a non-existent crime or, strength or weakness of the evidence against him.
contrarily, theorizing on the same basis that it charges more than one It is apropos to point out that the present petition has triggered a rush
offense, would not excuse or justify his improper choice of remedies. Under to this Court of other parties in a similar situation, all apparently taking
either hypothesis, the obvious recourse would have been a motion to quash their cue from it, distrustful or contemptuous of the efficacy of seeking
brought in the criminal action before the respondent Judge. 18 recourse in the regular manner just outlined. The proliferation of such pleas
There thus seems to be no question that all the grounds upon which has only contributed to the delay that the petitioner may have hoped to
petitioner has founded the present petition, whether these went into the avoid by coming directly to this Court.
substance of what is charged in the information or imputed error or Not only because popular interest seems focused on the outcome of the
omission on the part of the prosecuting panel or of the respondent Judge in present petition, but also because to wash the Court’s hand off it on
dealing with the charges against him, were originally justiciable in the jurisdictional grounds would only compound the delay that it has already
criminal case before said Judge and should have been brought up there gone through, the Court now decides the same on the merits. But in so
instead of directly to this Court. doing, the Court cannot express too strongly the view that said petition
There was and is no reason to assume that the resolution of any of these interdicted the ordered and orderly progression of proceedings that should
questions was beyond the ability or competence of the respondent Judge— have started with the trial court and reached this Court only if the relief
indeed such an assumption would be demeaning and less than fair to our applied for was denied by the former and, in a proper case, by the Court of
trial courts; none whatever to hold them to be of such complexity or Appeals on review.
transcendental importance as to disqualify every court, except this Court, Let it be made very clear that hereafter the Court will no longer
irom deciding them; none, in short that would justify by-passing established countenance, but will give short shrift to, pleas like the present, that clearly
judicial processes designed to orderly move litigation through the hierarchy short-circuit the judicial process and burden it with the resolution of issues
of our courts. Parenthetically, this is the reason behind the vote of four properly within the original competence of the lower courts.
Members of the Court against the grant of bail to petitioner: the view that What has thus far been stated is equally applicable to and decisive of the
the trial petition of the Panlilio spouses (G.R. No. 92164) which is virtually identical
to that of petitioner Enrile in factual
_______________
_______________
Sec. 2, Rule 117, Rules of Court.
18
BIDIN, J., Concurring and Dissenting: SARMIENTO, J., Concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that People v. Hernandez should abide. More than three decades
1 Note.—Amnesty granted by former President Marcos covers crimes for
after which it was penned, it has firmly settled in the tomes of our violation of subversion laws or those defined under crimes against public
jurisprudence as correct doctrine. order. (Macaga-an vs. People, 152 SCRA 480.)
As Hernandez put it, rebellion means “engaging in war against the forces
of the government,” which implies “resort to arms,
2 ——o0o——
_______________ _______________
Where, as here, the repeal of a penal law is total and absolute and the act which dated May 27, 1991, in CA-G.R. SP No. 24273, entitled “THE PEOPLE OF
was penalized by a prior law ceases to be criminal under the new law, the previous THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, versus HON. OSCAR B. PIMENTEL, as
offense is obliterated. It is a recognized rule in this jurisdiction that a total repeal Judge, RTC of Makati, Metro Manila, Branch 148 and ANTONIO A.
deprives the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence persons charged
TUJAN, Respondents.”
with violation of the old law prior to the repeal.
The record discloses the following antecedent facts:
Same; Same; Same; Same; With the enactment of R.A. No. 7636, the charge of
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, qualified by subversion should be As early as 1983, private respondent Antonio Tujan was charged with
amended to simple illegal possession of firearm and ammunition since subversion Subversion under Republic Act No. 1700 (the Anti-Subversion Law), as
is no longer a crime.—With the enactment of R.A. No. 7636, the charge of amended, before the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 45), National
subversion against the accused-private respondent has no more legal basis and Capital Region, docketed as Criminal Case No. 64079. As a consequence2
should be dismissed. As regards the other charge of illegal possession of firearm thereof, a warrant for his arrest was issued on July 29, 1983, but it 3
and ammunition, qualified by subversion, this charge should be amended to simple remained unserved as he could not be found.
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition since, as earlier discussed, Almost seven (7) years thereafter, or on June 5, 1990, Antonio Tujan was
subversion is no longer a crime. arrested on the basis of the warrant of arrest in the subversion case. When 4
arrested, an unlicensed .38 caliber special revolver and six (6) rounds of live
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals. ammunition were found in his possession. 5
Justice Ricardo J. Francisco and Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago; Annex “N,”
Petition; Rollo, pp. 95-106.
MARTINEZ, J.: 2 Annexes “E” & “E-1,” Petition; Rollo, pp. 32, 38.
3 Rollo, p. 39.
Is the Court of Appeals, in affirming the order of the Regional Trial Court, 4 Annexes “E” & “E-1,” supra.
correct in ruling that Subversion is the “main offense” in a charge of Illegal 5 Ibid.
The above Information recommended no bail for Antonio Tujan, which The petitioner opposed the motion to quash, arguing that Antonio Tujan
13
recommendation was approved by the trial court in an Order dated June does not stand in jeopardy of being convicted a second time because: (a) he
19, 1990. The same order also directed the continued detention of Antonio
7
has not even been arraigned in the subversion case, and (b) the offense
Tujan at MIG 15 of the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the charged against him in Criminal Case No. 64079 is for Subversion,
Philippines (ISAFP), Bago Bantay, Quezon City, while his case is pending. punishable under Republic Act No. 1700; while the present case is for
On June 26, 1990, Antonio Tujan, through counsel, filed a Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in Furtherance of
motion invoking his right to a preliminary investigation pursuant to
8
Subversion, punishable under a different law (Presidential Decree No.
Section 7, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court and praying that his 1866). Moreover, petitioner contends that Antonio Tujan’s reliance on
arraignment be held in abeyance until the preliminary investigation is the Misolas and Enrile cases “is misplaced.” Tujan merely relies on the
14
terminated. dissenting opinions in the Misolas case. Also, the Enrile case which
However, on June 27, 1990, during the hearing of Antonio Tujan’s involved a complex crime of rebellion with murder is inapplicable to the
motion for preliminary investigation, his counsel withdrew the motion since
he would file a motion to quash the Information, for which reason counsel ____________________________
requested a period of
9 Annex “D,” Petition; Rollo, p. 31.
____________________________
10 Annex “E,” Petition; Rollo, p. 32.
11 Rollo, p. 33.
12 Ibid., p. 34.
6 Annex “N,” Petition; Rollo, pp. 98-99.
13 Annex “G,” Petition; Rollo, p. 41.
7 Annex “B,” Petition; Rollo, p. 27.
14 Rollo, p. 43.
8 Annex “C,” Petition; Rollo, p. 28.
547 548
VOL. 288, APRIL 1, 1998 547 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Pimentel People vs. Pimentel
twenty (20) days to do so. This was granted by the trial court on that same instant case which is not a complex offense. Thus, the “absorption rule” as
day. 9
held applicable in the Enrile ruling “has no room for application in the
On July 16, 1990, Antonio Tujan did file the motion to quash the 10
present case because (illegal) possession of firearm and ammunition is not
Information in Criminal Case No. 1789 on the ground that he “has been a necessary means of committing the offense of subversion, nor is
previously in jeopardy of being convicted of the offense charged” in Criminal subversion a necessary means of committing the crime of illegal possession
Case No. 64079 (for subversion) of the Regional Trial Court of Manila of firearm and ammunition.” 15
(Branch 45). The said ground is based on Sections 3(h) and 7, Rule 117 of The trial court, in an order dated October 12, 1990, granted the motion
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. In support of the motion, Antonio to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 1789, the dispositive portion
Tujan contends that “common crimes such as illegal possession of firearms of the order reading:
and ammunition should actually be deemed absorbed in subversion,” citing11
“WHEREFORE, the motion to quash the information is hereby GRANTED, but
only in so far as the accused may be placed in jeopardy or in danger of being
the cases of Misolas vs. Panga, et al. (G.R. No. 83341, January 30, 1990, 181
convicted or acquitted of the crime of Subversion and as a consequence the
Information is hereby quashed and the case dismissed without prejudice to the ‘The defense of double jeopardy, while unquestionably available to the accused, had not
filing of Illegal Possession of Firearm. been clearly shown to be invokable (sic) at this point in time.’
“SO ORDERED.” 16 “But the rule says otherwise as previously stated as provided for under Section
It is best to quote the disquisition of the respondent court in quashing the 1 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.
information and dismissing the case: “Thus, if ever the accused is caught in possession of a firearm and ammunition
“x x x xxx xxx which is separate and distinct from the crime of subversion and is not a necessary
“In other words, the main offense the accused is being charged in this case is ingredient thereof and the court believed so, the prosecution will have to file another
also Subversion considering that the alleged Illegal Possession of the Firearm and information as they may wish. The court therefore has to grant the motion to quash
Ammunition is only in furtherance thereof. on the aforestated grounds, subject to Section 5 of Rule 117, considering that the
“Now, subversion being a continuing offense as has been previously held by the only offense to which the accused in this case may be placed in jeopardy is
Supreme Court, the fact that the accused has been previously charged of Subversion and not Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions.
Subversion before another court before the institution of this instant case is just a “The prosecution may file any information as warranted within ten (10) days
continuing offense of his former charge or that his acts constituting subversion is from receipt of this order otherwise the court will
550
a continuation of the acts he committed before.
“The court therefore cannot subscribe to the position taken by the prosecution
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
that this case is very different from the other case and that double jeopardy will People vs. Pimentel
attach in this particular case. order the release of the accused, unless he is in custody for some other
offense.” (Emphasis ours)
17
____________________________ Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied in an order dated
18
Rollo, p. 43.
15
551
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 288, APRIL 1, 1998 551 People vs. Pimentel
People vs. Pimentel the Information in Criminal Case No. 1789 that the unlicensed firearm
The ruling of the Court of Appeals is erroneous. found in the possession of Antonio Tujan, “a member of the communist
Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, under which Antonio Tujan is party of the Philippines and its front organization,” was used “in
charged in Criminal Case No. 1789 before the Regional Trial Court of furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of
Makati (Branch 148), provides as follows: subversion” does not charge him with the separate and distinct crime of
“Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of Subversion in the same Information, but simply describes the mode or
Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the manner by which the violation of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 was
Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition.—The penalty of reclusion temporal in committed so as to qualify the penalty to death.
21
its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who There is, therefore, only one offense charged in the questioned
shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any firearms, information, that is, the illegal possession of firearm and ammunition,
part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to qualified by its being used in furtherance of subversion. There is nothing
22
be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition. in P.D. No. 1866, specifically Section 1 thereof, which decrees categorically
“If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearms, the or by implication that the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion are
penalty of death shall be imposed.
the very acts that are being penalized. This is clear from the title of the law
“If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in
connection with the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion, the penalty of
itself which boldly indicates the specific acts penalized under it:
death shall be imposed. “CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION,
“The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITIONOR DISPOSITION, OF
perpetua shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN
responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES,
who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS
company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of THEREOF AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES.” (Emphasis ours)
violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs. On the other hand, the previous subversion charge against Antonio Tujan
“The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall in Criminal Case No. 64079, before the Regional Trial Court of Manila
carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal authority therefor.” (Branch 45), is based on a different law, that is, Republic Act No. 1700, as
(Emphasis ours) amended. Section 3 thereof penalizes any person who “knowingly, wilfully
and by overt act affiliates with, becomes or remains a member of a
____________________________ 554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
See Tangan vs. People, et al., No. L-73963, November 5, 1987, 155 SCRA 435, 444.
21
People vs. Pimentel
See Misolas vs. Panga, et al., G.R. No. 83341 [En Banc], January 30, 1990, 181 SCRA 648.
22 The right of an accused against double jeopardy is a matter which he may
553 raise in a motion to quash to defeat a subsequent prosecution for
VOL. 288, APRIL 1, 1998 553 the same offense. The pertinent provision of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules
People vs. Pimentel of Court provides:
subversive association or organization x x x.” Section 4 of said law further “SEC. 3. Grounds.—The accused may move to quash the complaint or information
penalizes “such member [of the Communist Party of the Philippines and/or on any of the following grounds:
its successor or of any subversive association] (who) takes up arms against xxx xxx xxx
the Government.” Thus, in the present case, private respondent Antonio (h) That the accused has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being
convicted, or acquitted of the offense charged. (2a)” (Emphasis ours)
Tujan could be charged either under P.D. No. 1866 or R.A. No. 1700, or 23
In order that the protection against double jeopardy may inure to the
both.
benefit of an accused, the following requisites must have obtained in
This leads us to the issue of whether or not private respondent Antonio
the first criminal action: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a
Tujan was placed in double jeopardy with the filing of the second
competent court; (c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and (d) the
Information for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in
24
has substantially changed the complexion of the present case, inasmuch as jurisdiction that a total repeal deprives the courts of jurisdiction to try,
the said repealing law being favorable to the accused-private respondent, convict and sentence persons charged with violation of the old law prior to
who is not a habitual delinquent, should be given retroactive effect. 26 the repeal. 31
Although this legal effect of R.A. No. 7636 on privaterespondent’s case With the enactment of R.A. No. 7636, the charge of subversion against
has never been raised as an issue by the parties—obviously because the the accused-private respondent has no more legal basis and should be
said law came out only several months after the questioned decision of the dismissed.
Court of Appeals was promulgated and while the present petition is As regards the other charge of illegal possession of firearm and
pending with this Court—we should nonetheless fulfill our duty as a court ammunition, qualified by subversion, this charge should be amended to
of justice by applying the law to whomsoever is benefited by it regardless of simple illegal possession of firearm and ammunition since, as earlier
whether or not the accused or any party has sought the application of the discussed, subversion is no longer a crime.
beneficent provisions of the repealing law. 27 Moreover, the offense of simple illegal possession of firearm and
That R.A. No. 7636 should apply retroactively to accusedprivate ammunition is now bailable under Republic Act No. 8294 which was
respondent is beyond question. The repeal by said law of R.A. No. 1700, as enacted on June 6, 1997. R.A. No. 8294 has amended Presidential Decree
amended, was categorical, definite and absolute. There was no saving No. 1866, as amended, by eliminating the provision in said P.D. that if the
clause in the repeal. The legislative intent of totally abrogating the old anti- unlicensed firearm is used in furtherance of subversion, the penalty of
subversion law is clear. Thus, it would be illogical for the trial courts to try death shall be imposed. Under the new law (R.A. No. 8294), the penalty
32
and sentence the accused-private respondent for an offense that no longer prescribed for simple illegal possession of firearm (.38 caliber) is now
exists. 28 reduced to prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less
As early as 1935, we ruled in People vs. Tamayo: 29 than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00). The reduced penalty of
33
“There is no question that at common law and in America a much more favorable imprisonment—which is four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to
attitude towards the accused exists relative to statutes that have been repealed six (6) years—entitles the accused-private respondent to bail.
than has been adopted here. Our
____________________________
____________________________
30 Ibid.
26 Article 22, Revised Penal Code. 31 People vs. Sindiong, et al., 77 Phil. 1000; People vs. Jacinto, O.G., November 17, 1958, pp.
27 See People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994 (En Banc), 234 SCRA 555, 570-571,
7585, 7587.
citing People vs. Moran, et al., 44 Phil. 387 [1923]. 32 Section 1, par. 3, P.D. No. 1866, as amended.
118 Cuevas v. Muñoz, 401 Phil. 752, 773-774; 348 SCRA 542, 562 (2000).
Here, the allegations of petitioners point to factual matters indicated in 119 Rollo (G.R. No. 176830), p. 82.
the affidavits of the complainants and witnesses as bases for the contention 120 Heirs of Marasigan v. Marasigan, G.R. No. 156078, 14 March 2008, 548 SCRA 409,
that there was no probable cause for petitioners’ indictment for multiple 443; Serapio v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), 444 Phil. 499, 529; 396 SCRA 443, 466
murder or for the issuance of warrants for their arrest. As stated above, the (2003); Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 984, 990; 321 SCRA 368, 373-374 (1999).
704
trial judge’s appreciation of the evidence and conclusion of facts based
Under the political offense doctrine, “common crimes, perpetrated in
thereon are not interfered with in the absence of grave abuse of discretion.
furtherance of a political offense, are divested of their character as
Again, “he sufficiently complies with the requirement of personal
“common” offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime
determination if he reviews the [I]nformation and the documents attached
of which they are mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be punished
thereto, and on the
_______________ separately from the principal offense, or complexed with the same, to justify
the imposition of a graver penalty.”121
115 Rollo (G.R. No. 176830), p. 64. Any ordinary act assumes a different nature by being absorbed in the
116 Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan, 491 Phil. 704, 720; 451 SCRA 533, 551 (2005).
117 Id., at pp. 720-721; p. 551. crime of rebellion.122 Thus, when a killing is committed in furtherance of
703basis thereof forms a belief that the accused is probably guilty of the rebellion, the killing is not homicide or murder. Rather, the killing assumes
crime with which he is being charged.” 118 the political complexion of rebellion as its mere ingredient and must be
Judge Abando’s review of the Information and the supporting documents prosecuted and punished as rebellion alone.
is shown by the following portion of the judge’s 6 March 2007 Order: However, this is not to say that public prosecutors are obliged to
On the evaluation of the Resolution and its Information as submitted and filed consistently charge respondents with simple rebellion instead of common
by the Provincial Prosecution of Leyte Province supported by the following crimes. No one disputes the well-entrenched principle in criminal procedure
documents: Affidavits of Complainants, Sworn Statements of Witnesses and other that the institution of criminal charges, including whom and what to
pertinent documents issued by the Regional Crime Laboratory Office, PNP, Region charge, is addressed to the sound discretion of the public prosecutor.123
VIII and Camp Crame, Quezon City, pictures of the grave site and skeletal But when the political offense doctrine is asserted as a defense in the
remains, this court has the findings [sic] of probable cause in the commission by trial court, it becomes crucial for the court to determine whether the act of
all mentioned accused of the crime charged.119 killing was done in furtherance of a political end, and for the political
motive of the act to be conclusively demonstrated.124
At bottom, issues involving the finding of probable cause for an Petitioners aver that the records show that the alleged murders were
indictment and issuance of a warrant of arrest, as petitioners are doubtless committed in furtherance of the CPP/NPA/NDFP rebellion, and that the
aware, are primarily questions of fact that are normally not within the political motivation behind the alleged murders can be clearly seen from
purview of a petition for certiorari,120 such as the petitions filed in the the
instant consolidated cases. _______________
The political offense doctrine is
121 People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515, 541 (1956).
not a ground to dismiss the charge 122 People v. Lovedioro, 320 Phil. 481, 489; 250 SCRA 389, 395 (1995).
against petitioners prior to a de-
123 Glaxosmithkline Philippines, Inc. v. Malik, 530 Phil. 662; 499 SCRA 268 upon the filing of the Information for simple rebellion, as long as petitioners
(2006); Punzalan v. Dela Peña, 478 Phil. 771; 434 SCRA 601 (2004); Potot v. People, 432 Phil.
would not be placed in double jeopardy.
1028; 383 SCRA 449 (2002).
124 Supra note 122. Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, states:
705charge against the alleged top leaders of the CPP/NPA/NDFP as co-- SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy.—When an accused
conspirators. has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon
We had already ruled that the burden of demonstrating political
a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and
motivation must be discharged by the defense, since motive is a state of
substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge,
mind which only the accused knows.125 The proof showing political the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar
motivation is adduced during trial where the accused is assured an to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the
opportunity to present evidence supporting his defense. It is not for this same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is
Court to determine this factual matter in the instant petitions. necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.
As held in the case of Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga Based on the above provision, double jeopardy only applies when: (1) a
Del Norte v. CA,126 if during trial, petitioners are able to show that the first jeopardy attached; (2) it has been validly terminated; and (3) a second
alleged murders were indeed committed in furtherance of rebellion, Section jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first.127
14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides the remedy, to wit: A first jeopardy attaches only after the accused has been acquitted or
SECTION 14. Amendment or substitution.—A complaint or information may convicted, or the case has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without
be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the his express consent, by a compe-
accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment _______________
may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing
prejudice to the rights of the accused. 127 Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, 28 September 2007, 534 SCRA 338, 352.
However, any amendment before plea, which downgrades the nature of the 707tent court in a valid indictment for which the accused has entered a valid
offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint or information, can plea during arraignment.128
be made only upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and To recall, on 12 May 2006, an Information for the crime of rebellion, as
with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving the motion and defined and penalized under Article 134 in relation to Article 135 of the
copies of its order shall be furnished all parties, especially the offended party. (n) Revised Penal Code, docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-944 was filed before
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made the RTC Makati against petitioners and several others.129
in charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original However, petitioners were never arraigned in Criminal Case No. 06-944.
complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the Even before the indictment for rebellion was filed before the RTC Makati,
proper offense in accordance with
_______________
petitioners Ocampo, Echanis and Ladlad had already filed a petition before
this Court to seek the nullification of the Orders of the DOJ denying their
125 Id. motion for the inhibition of the members of the prosecution panel due to
126 401 Phil. 945, 961; 348 SCRA 714, 728 (2000).
706Section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not be placed in lack of impartiality and independence.130 When the indictment was filed,
double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to give bail for their petitioners Ocampo, Echanis and Ladlad filed supplemental petitions to
appearance at the trial. (Emphasis supplied) enjoin the prosecution of Criminal Case No. 06-944.131 We eventually
ordered the dismissal of the rebellion case. It is clear then that a first
Thus, if it is shown that the proper charge against petitioners should jeopardy never had a chance to attach.
have been simple rebellion, the trial court shall dismiss the murder charges
Petitioner Ocampo shall remain on provisional liberty under the CONCURRING OPINION
P100,000 cash bond posted before the Office of the Clerk of Court. He shall
remain on provisional liberty until the termination of the proceedings “Some say freedom is relative. One man’s freedom is another man’s bondage. We
before the RTC Manila. may have been in chains, but we weren’t shackled by delusions. Our movements
The OSG has given its conformity to the provisional liberty of petitioners were restrained, but we weren’t tied up by myth. Our tormentors thought they were
Echanis, Baylosis and Ladlad in view of the ongoing peace negotiations. free, but they were blinded by falsehood; their senses were deadened by the mirage
of power they clutched and made god. And then they were stunned by their own
Their provisional release from detention under the cash bond of P100,000
shadows; paralyzed by fear of the very monsters and demons they fashioned in their
each shall continue under the condition that their temporary release shall
heads that stood to devour them at the end of it all.
be limited to the period of their actual participation as CPPNDF 709
consultants in the peace negotiations with the govern- . . . Our eventual freedom was truly memorable. The process of unchaining was
_______________ both literal and symbolic, and not without drama and fanfare. We weren’t released
128 Id. all at once, but one or two at a time. Ka Ranel and myself were freed at the same
129 Rollo (G.R. No. 176830), pp. 117-128. time — around December of 1988. ‘Free at last!’ we declared, grinning from ear to
130 Ladlad v. Velasco, G.R. Nos. 172070-72, 172074-76, 175013, 1 June 2007, 523 SCRA ear. We were guided through some underbrush, after it we came upon a clearing
318, 340. where the rest of the former captives were waiting. We were greeted with applause.
131 Id. Tearful hugs, handshakes, up-heres, singing, merry-making, even role-playing.
708ment or until the termination of the proceedings before the RTC Manila, Rage and retribution will have to wait. The moment was a celebration.”
whichever is sooner. It shall be the duty of the government to inform this Robert Francis Garcia
Court the moment that peace negotiations are concluded. “To Suffer Thy Comrades:
WHEREFORE, the instant consolidated petitions are DISMISSED. How the Revolution Decimated Its Own” 24 (2001)
The RTC of Manila, Branch 32, is hereby ORDERED to proceed with
dispatch with the hearing of Criminal Case No. 08-262163. Petitioner LEONEN, J.:
Saturnino C. Ocampo shall remain on temporary liberty under the same Dissent affirms the dissenter’s belief in how human dignity should be
bail granted by this Court until the termination of the proceedings before shaped. It assumes difference with the status quo. It is this assertion that
the RTC Manila. Petitioners Randall B. Echanis, Rafael G. Baylosis and provides depth and dynamism in our democracy.
Vicente P. Ladlad shall remain on temporary liberty under the same bail However, indignities masquerading as dissent or even brought about by
granted by this Court until their actual participation as CPP-NDF misguided assessments of what is pragmatic do not deserve any legal
consultants in the peace negotiations with the government are concluded protection. Such acts cease to become political. These are simply inhuman.
or terminated, or until the termination of the proceedings before the RTC Acts which debase humanity even by the most organized and ardent
Manila, whichever is sooner. dissenters do not even deserve the label of rebellion.
SO ORDERED. I concur with the Chief Justice that this case should be remanded so that
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del the court can properly examine the evidence raised by the defense. I write
Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes and Perlas-Bernabe, this separate opinion in the interest of judicial economy. Should it be shown
JJ., concurring. that there are acts committed in violation of Republic Act No. 9851,
Leonen, J., See separate concurring opinion. otherwise known as the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International
Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity, these
acts could not be absorbed in the crime of rebellion.
710
I was inherent in the military operations for the preservation of the troops
For our decision are consolidated petitions for certiorariand prohibition commanded by him and of which he was the supreme officer on that island. It was
that pray for the declaration of several Informations and Warrants of an act which, while from the standpoint of military law might be regarded
Arrests as void. The Informations and Warrants were issued for the crime as one of cruelty, was at the same time one depending absolutely upon the
discretion of an officer in charge of a command for securing the safety of
of multiple murder. Petitioners assert that they have a pending criminal
the troops under his control and constitutes no other offense than that of
charge of rebellion1 and that the acts raised in their petitions should be
sedition, within which term the war itself is included by the letter and
dismissed because they are deemed to be affected by the political offense spirit of the proclamation.3 (Emphasis provided)
doctrine. The political offense doctrine states that certain crimes, such as In United States v. Pacheco,4 two men selling English dictionaries within
murder, are already absorbed by the charge of rebellion when committed as the Dagupan area were abruptly abducted and killed by the accused and
a necessary means and in connection with or in furtherance of rebellion. his men. Witnesses testified that it was presumed by the accused that the
I agree that this case should be remanded because there has been no salesmen were American spies because the dictionaries being sold were
evidence yet to prove that the acts imputed to the petitioners actually written in English. This court observed:
happened or are attributable to them. Judicial economy, however, requires It does not appear from the record that the aggressors were impelled to kill the
that we state that there are certain acts which have been committed on the deceased by any motive other than that the latter were suspected of being spies
occasion of a rebellion which should no longer be absorbed in that crime. _______________
Acts committed in violation of Republic Act No. 9851, even in the context 2 1 Phil. 729 (1903).
of armed conflicts of a non-international character and in view of the 3 Id., at p. 730.
declarations of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National 4 2 Phil. 345 (1903).
Democratic Front, cannot be deemed to be acts in connection with or in 712and, therefore, traitors to the revolutionary party to which the defendants
furtherance of rebellion. belonged. From the foregoing statement of facts, it may therefore be said that the
two murders prosecuted herein were of a political character and the result
of internal political hatreds between Filipinos, the defendants having been
II insurgents opposed to the constituted government.
We survey the evolution of the political offense doctrine to provide better The case has to do with two crimes for which, under the penal law, the severest
context. punishment has always been inflicted. However, considering the circumstances
_______________ under which these crimes were committed and the fact that the sovereign power
1 However, see Ladlad v. Velasco, G.R. Nos. 172070-72, 172074-76, and 175013, June 1, in these Islands, in view of the extraordinary and radical disturbance which,
2007, 523 SCRA 318, wherein this court granted the petitions and ordered the dismissal of during the period following the year 1896, prevailed in and convulsed this country,
Criminal Case Nos. 06-452 and 06-944 for rebellion. and prompted by the dictates of humanity and public policy, has deemed
711 it advisable to blot out even the shadow of a certain class of offenses,
As early as 1903, this court distinguished common crimes from crimes decreeing full pardon and amnesty to their authors — an act of elevated
committed in furtherance of a political objective. In United States v. statesmanship and timely generosity, more political than judicial in its nature,
Lardizabal,2 the accused, Commanding Officer of Filipino insurgents, intended to mitigate the severity of the law — it is incumbent upon us, in deciding
ordered the execution of an American prisoner before retreating from the this case, to conform our judgment to the requirements and conditions of the
enemy. We said in this case that the accused’s act falls under the Amnesty decree so promulgated.5 (Emphasis provided)
Proclamation of 1902, thus: Then in the landmark case of People v. Hernandez,6 this court defined
x x x [the execution] was not an isolated act such as a “political offense committed the term, political offense:
during the insurrection pursuant to orders issued by the civil or military In short, political crimes are those directly aimed against the political
insurrectionary authorities,” but was a measure which, whether necessary or not, order, as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a
political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive. If a crime mayhem so much in the news these days, as often perpetrated against
usually regarded as common, like homicide, is perpetrated for the purpose of innocent civilians as against the military, but by and large attributable
removing from the allegiance “to the Government the territory of the Philippines to, or even claimed by so-called rebels to be part of, an ongoing rebellion.
Islands or any part thereof” then said offense becomes stripped of its It is enough to give anyone pause — and the Court is no exception — that not
“common” complex- even the crowded streets of our capital City seem safe from such unsettling
_______________ violence that is disruptive of the public peace and stymies every effort at national
5 Id., at pp. 346-347.
economic recovery. There is an apparent need to restructure the law on
6 99 Phil. 515 (1956). rebellion, either to raise the penalty therefor or to clearly define and
713ion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime of rebellion, the delimit the other offenses to be considered as absorbed thereby, so that it
former acquires the political character of the latter.7 (Emphasis provided) cannot be conveniently utilized as the umbrella for every sort of illegal
This court in Hernandez first clarified whether common crimes such as activity undertaken in its name. The Court has no power to effect such change,
murder, arson, and other similar crimes are to be complexed with the main for it can only interpret the law as it stands at any given time, and what is needed
crimes in the Revised Penal Code. Thus: lies beyond interpretation. Hopefully, Congress will perceive the need for promptly
x x x national, as well as international, laws and jurisprudence overwhelmingly seizing the initiative in this matter, which is properly within its
favor the proposition that common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a province.10 (Emphasis provided)
political offense, are divested of their character as “common” offenses and However, other cases declined to rule that all other crimes charged in
assume the political complexion of the main crime of which they are mere the Information are absorbed under alleged political offenses.11 In Misolas
ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be punished separately from the v. Panga,12 this court ruled:
principal offense, or complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of _______________
a graver penalty.8 (Emphasis provided) 10 Id., at pp. 617-618; p. 233.
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code covering complex crimes provides: 11 See Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga del Norte v. Court of Appeals, 401
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.—When a single act constitutes two or more Phil. 945; 348 SCRA 714 (2000).
grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for 715
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the Neither would the doctrines enunciated by the Court
same to be applied in its maximum period. in Hernandez and Geronimo, [sic] and People v. Rodriguez [107 Phil. 659] save the
The Hernandez ruling was then affirmed by this court in subsequent day for petitioner.
cases, such as Enrile v. Salazar.9 It is worthy to note, however, that in In Hernandez, the accused were charged with the complex crime of rebellion
with murder, arson and robbery while in Geronimo, the information was for the
“affirming” the doctrine in Hernandez, this court in Enrile said:
_______________
complex crime of rebellion with murder, robbery and kidnapping. In those two
cases[,] the Court held that aforestated common crimes cannot be complexed with
7 Id., at pp. 535-536. rebellion as these crimes constituted the means of committing the crime of
8 Id., at p. 541. rebellion. These common crimes constituted the acts of “engaging in war” and
9 264 Phil. 593; 186 SCRA 217 (1990) [Per J. Narvasa, En Banc]. “committing serious violence” which are essential elements of the crime of
714
rebellion [See Arts. 134-135, Revised Penal Code] and, hence, are deemed absorbed
It may be that in the light of contemporary events, the act of rebellion has lost
in the crime of rebellion. Consequently, the accused can be held liable only for the
that quintessentially quixotic quality that justifies the relative leniency with
single crime of rebellion.
which it is regarded and punished by law, that present-day rebels are less impelled
On the other hand, in Rodriguez, the Court ruled that since the accused had
by love of country than by lust for power and have become no better than mere
already been charged with rebellion, he can no longer be charged for illegal
terrorists to whom nothing, not even the sanctity of human life, is allowed to stand
possession of firearms for the same act of unauthorized possession of firearm on
in the way of their ambitions. Nothing so underscores this aberration as the
which the charge of rebellion was based, as said act constituted the very means for
rash of seemingly senseless killings, bombings, kidnappings and assorted
the commission of rebellion. Thus, the illegal possession of the firearm was deemed as a complex of rebellion with other offenses. There is no constitutional
absorbed in the crime of rebellion. prohibition against this, and the Court never
However, in the present case, petitioner is being charged specifically for the _______________
qualified offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under P.D. 1866. 14 279 Phil. 448; 202 SCRA 405 (1991).
HE IS NOT BEING CHARGED WITH THE COMPLEX CRIME OF 717said there was. What the Court stated in said cases about rebellion
SUBVERSION WITH ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS. NEITHER IS HE “absorbing” common crimes committed in its course or furtherance must be viewed
BEING SEPARATELY CHARGED FOR SUBVERSION AND FOR ILLEGAL in light of the fact that at the time they were decided, there were no penal
POSSESSION OF FIREARMS. Thus, the rulings of the Court provisions defining and punishing, as specific offenses, crimes like murder, etc.
in Hernandez, Geronimo and Rodriquez find no application in this committed in the course or as part of a rebellion. This is no longer true, as far as
case.13 (Emphasis in the original) the present case is concerned, and there being no question that PD 1866 was a
_______________
valid exercise of the former President’s legislative powers.15 (Emphasis provided)
12 260 Phil. 702; 181 SCRA 648 (1990) [Per J. Cortes, En Banc].
13 Id., at pp. 709-710; p. 656. It is not our intention to wipe out the history of and the policy behind the
716
political offense doctrine. What this separate opinion seeks to accomplish is
In Baylosis v. Chavez, Jr.,14 this court held that: to qualify the conditions for the application of the doctrine and remove any
x x x The Code allows, for example, separate prosecutions for either murder or
blanket application whenever political objectives are alleged. The remnants
rebellion, although not for both where the indictment alleges that the former has
been committed in furtherance of or in connection with the latter. Surely, of armed conflict continue. Sooner or later, with a victor that emerges or
whether people are killed or injured in connection with a rebellion, or even with the success of peace negotiations with insurgent groups, some
not, the deaths or injuries of the victims are no less real, and the grief of form of transitional justice may need to reckon with different types of
the victims’ families no less poignant. crimes committed on the occasion of these armed uprisings. Certainly,
Moreover, it certainly is within the power of the legislature to determine what crimes that run afoul the basic human dignity of persons must not be
acts or omissions other than those set out in the Revised Penal Code or other tolerated. This is in line with the recent developments in national and
existing statutes are to be condemned as separate, individual crimes and what international law.16
penalties should be attached thereto. The power is not diluted or improperly
wielded simply because at some prior time the act or omission was but an element III
or ingredient of another offense, or might usually have been connected with
another crime. International humanitarian law17 (IHL) is the body of international law
The interdict laid in Hernandez, Enrile and the other cases cited is against that regulates the conduct of armed conflicts,
attempts to complex rebellion with the so called “common” crimes committed in _______________
furtherance, or in the course, thereof; this, on the authority alone of the first
sentence of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Stated otherwise, the ratio of 15 Id., at pp. 462-463; pp. 415-416.
16 In August 30, 2011, the Philippines ratified the Rome Statute of the International
said cases is that Article 48 cannot be invoked as the basis for charging and Criminal Court.
prosecuting the complex crime of rebellion with murder, etc., for the purpose of 17 See Vincent Chetail, ‘The contribution of the International Court of Justice to
obtaining imposition of the penalty for the more serious offense in its maximum international humanitarian law,’ 85 IRRC
period (in accordance with said Art. 48). Said cases did not — indeed they (2003)<http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_850_chetail.pdf> accessed on February 5,
could not and were never meant to — proscribe the legislative authority 2014. Contemporary IHL developed from the early laws of war (jus in bello), the Martens Clause
from validly enacting statutes that would define and punish, as offenses and the “elementary considerations of humanity,” and the Hague Conventions of 1907.
sui generis crimes which, in the context of Hernandez, et al. may be viewed 718whether of an international or non-international character. This body
of law seeks to limit the effects of the conflict on individuals.18 The 1949
Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols are the main instruments be international, that is, between two (2) or more States, including belligerent
that govern IHL.19 Nevertheless, IHL and the rules and principles occupation; or non-international, that is, between governmental
contained in the Geneva Conventions are largely regarded in the authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within
international sphere as having the character of general or customary a State. It does not cover internal disturbances or tensions such as riots,
isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar
international law given the fundamental nature of the rules and “because
nature.23 (Emphasis provided)
they constitute intransgressible principles of international customary
Article 3 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional
law.”20
Protocol II24 are the foundation of the applicable rules in a non-international
In the Philippines, Republic Act No. 9851 was enacted in view of its
or internal armed conflict. Common Article 3, which has attained a
policy to “[renounce] war x x x, [adopt] the generally accepted principles of
customary law character,25 prescribes a minimum standard to be applied to
international law as part of the law of the land and [adhere] to a policy of
persons who are not actively taking part in an internal armed conflict.
peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all
Common Article 3 provides:
nations.”21 Accordingly, “[t]he most serious crimes of concern to the _______________
international community as a whole must not go unpunished and their
effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national 22 Rep. Act. No. 9851 (2009), sec. 2 (e).
23 Rep. Act. No. 9851 (2009), sec. 3 (c). See also The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (Jurisdiction
level, in order to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes of the Tribunal), Case No. IT-94-1-AR72 (1995).
and thus contribute to the prevention of such crimes, it being the duty of 24 Protocol Additional To The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, And Relating To The
every State to Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) of 8 June 1977.
_______________ 25 See J. M. Henckaerts & L. Doswald-Beck, CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN
LAW 1-2 (vol. I [reprinted with corrections], 2009).
18 See ‘The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols,’ International 720
Committee of the Red Cross <http://www. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the
icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/ territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be
overview-geneva-conventions.htm> accessed on February 5, 2014. See also C.
bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
Greenwood, Historical Development and Basis in THE HANDBOOK OF HUMANITARIAN LAW IN
ARMED CONFLICTS 9-10 (1995). 1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed
19 The Philippines is a signatory of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It ratified the forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
conventions on October 10, 1952. The Philippines acceded to Additional Protocol II on December sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
11, 1986. circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction
20 M. M. MAGALLONA, FUNDAMENTALS OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 297 (2005) founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other
citing Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Reports, 1996, paras. 79 and 82.
similar criteria.
21 Rep. Act No. 9851 (2009), “An Act Defining and Penalizing Crimes Against International
Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity, Organizing Jurisdiction, To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in
Designating Special Courts, and For Related Purposes,” sec. 2 (a). any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
719exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
crimes.”22 mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
b) taking of hostages;
Armed conflict in the law is defined as:
c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
x x x any use of force or armed violence between States or a protracted armed
treatment;
violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or
d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
between such groups within a State: Provided, That such force or armed violence
previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court,
gives rise, or may give rise, to a situation to which the Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949, including their common Article 3, apply. Armed conflict may
affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as 1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in
indispensable by civilized peoples. hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to
2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. respect for their person, honour and convictions and religious practices. They
This portion of the provision is substantially reproduced in Section 4, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse
paragraph (b) of Republic Act No. 9851, which provides: distinction. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.
In case of a non-international armed conflict, serious violations of common Article 2. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following acts against
3 to the four (4) Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the the persons referred to in paragraph 1 are and shall remain prohibited at any
following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, time and in any place whatsoever:
including members of the armed forces a) violence to the life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in
721who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or
wounds, detention or any other cause: any form of corporal punishment;
(1) Violence to life and person, in particular, willful killings, mutilation, b) collective punishments;
cruel treatment and torture; c) taking of hostages;
(2) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating d) acts of terrorism;
and degrading treatment; e) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
(3) Taking of hostages; and treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
(4) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without f) slavery and the slave trade in all their forms;
previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all g) pillage;
judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable. h) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.
xxxx
Additional Protocol II supplements Common Article 3 in terms of the
Article 5 — Persons whose liberty has been restricted
rules applicable to internal armed conflict.26Additional Protocol II specifies:
1. In addition to the provisions of Article 4, the following provisions shall be
1) the guarantees afforded to persons involved in the internal armed
respected as a
conflict; and 2) the 723minimum with regard to persons deprived of their liberty for reasons
_______________
related to the armed conflict, whether they are interned or detained:
26 Article 1 — Material field of application a) the wounded and the sick shall be treated in accordance with Article 7;
1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva b) the persons referred to in this paragraph shall, to the same extent as the
Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of applications, local civilian population, be provided with food and drinking water and be
shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol afforded safeguards as regards health and hygiene and protection against
Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection
of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the
the rigours of the climate and the dangers of the armed conflict;
territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed c) they shall be allowed to receive individual or collective relief;
forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise d) they shall be allowed to practice their religion and, if requested and
such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and appropriate, to receive spiritual assistance from persons, such as chaplains,
concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol. performing religious functions;
2. This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, e) they shall, if made to work, have the benefit of working conditions and
such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature,
as not being armed conflicts.
safeguards similar to those enjoyed by the local civilian population.
2. Those who are responsible for the internment or detention of the
722obligations of the parties to the internal armed conflict. These rights and
persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall also, within the limits of their
duties are seen in Articles 4 to 6, to wit: capabilities, respect the following provisions relating to such persons:
Article 4 — Fundamental guarantees
a) except when men and women of a family are accommodated together, women the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a
shall be held in quarters separated from those of men and shall be under the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;
immediate supervision of women; d) anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty
b) they shall be allowed to send and receive letters and cards, the number of according to law;
which may be limited by competent authority if it deems necessary; e) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence;
724 f) no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.
c) places of internment and detention shall not be located close to the combat A convicted person shall be advised on conviction of his judicial and other remedies
zone. The persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be evacuated when the and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised.
places where they are interned or detained become particularly exposed to The death penalty shall not be pronounced on persons who were under the age of
danger arising out of the armed conflict, if their evacuation can be carried eighteen years at the time of the offence and shall not be carried out on pregnant
out under adequate conditions of safety; women or mothers of young children.
d) they shall have the benefit of medical examinations; At the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the
e) their physical or mental health and integrity shall not be endangered by any broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict,
unjustified act or omission. Accordingly, it is prohibited to subject the or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict, whether
persons described in this Article to any medical procedure which is not they are interned or detained. (Emphasis provided)
indicated by the state of health of the person concerned, and which is not 726
consistent with the generally accepted medical standards applied to free Furthermore, protection for the civilian population is expressly provided
persons under similar medical circumstances. for in Additional Protocol II:
3. Persons who are not covered by paragraph 1 but whose liberty has Article 13 — Protection of the civilian population
been restricted in any way whatsoever for reasons related to the The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection
armed conflict shall be treated humanely in accordance with Article 4 against the dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this
and with paragraphs 1 a), c) and d), and 2 b) of this Article. protection, the following rules shall be observed in all circumstances.
4. If it is decided to release persons deprived of their liberty, necessary measures The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the
to ensure their safety shall be taken by those so deciding. object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to
spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
Article 6 — Penal prosecutions Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time
This Article applies to the prosecution and punishment of criminal offences related as they take a direct part in hostilities.
to the armed conflict.
No sentence shall be passed and no penalty shall be executed on a person found Some have asserted that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
guilty of an offence except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by a court offering
belongs to the body of jus cogens norms.27 Jus cogens norms under the
the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality. In particular:
725 Vienna Convention of Law of the Treaties are “norm[s] accepted and
a) the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the recognized by the international community of States as a whole as
particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused [norms] from which no derogation is permitted and which can be
before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence; modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the
b) no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal same character.”28
responsibility; _______________
c) no one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or
27 See Rafael Nieto-Navia, ‘International Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens) and
omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under the law, at the time
International Humanitarian Law’ (2001) <http://
when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which www.iccnow.org/documents/WritingColombiaEng.pdf> pp. 24-26, accessed on February 6,
was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after 2014. See also Ulf Linderfalk, ‘The Effect of Jus CogensNorms: Whoever Opened Pandora’s Box,
Did You Ever Think About the Consequences?,’ vol. 18, no. 5 European Journal of International as basic rules of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict, and
Law (2007) <http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/18/5/248.pdf> pp. 853-871, accessed on February 6, 2014. the right to self-determination.30 (Emphasis provided)
Consider Ulf’s discussion on the proposition that IHL, in relation to the right to self-defense
and the right to use of force, has jus cogens character, pp. 865-867.
International humanitarian law and international human rights law are
28 Article 53. Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law two sets of regimes in international law. The two regimes have been
(“jus cogens”). compared and contrasted with each other, to wit:
727 The two sets of rules certainly have a different history and often a different field
The principles embedded in Common Article 3 have been held to apply of application, both ratione personae and ratione temporis. Human rights thus
even to international armed conflict, thus, depicting a universal character. apply to all people and humanitarian law applies to certain groups of persons (for
It lays down fundamental standards which are applicable at all times, in all example, to the wounded, to prisoners o[f] war, to civilians) and, furthermore,
circumstances and to all States and from which no derogation at any time is humanitarian law applies only in times of armed conflict. On the other hand,
permitted. As was stated, it “sets forth a minimum core of mandatory rules [and], ‘human rights’ and ‘humanitarian law’ regulate, ratione materiae, similar rights
reflects the fundamental humanitarian principles which underlie international at least insofar that they all intend to increase the protection of individuals,
humanitarian law as a whole, and upon which the Geneva Conventions in their alleviate pain and suffering and secure the minimum standard of persons in
entirety are based. These principles, the object of which is the respect for various situations.31 (Emphasis in the original)
the dignity of the human person, developed as a result of centuries of Thus, all persons are protected in both times of war and peace. The
warfare and had already become customary law at the time of the protection accorded by human rights laws does not cease to apply when
adoption of the Geneva Conventions because they reflect the most armed conflict ensues.32 Still, some “hu-
universally recognized humanitarian principles.”29 (Emphasis provided) _______________
Hence, nonobservance of the minimum standard provided for in
30 O. DE SCHUTTER, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW: CASES, MATERIALS,
Common Article 3 triggers a violation of well-accepted principles of COMMENTARY 65 (2010).
international law. 31 I. DETTER, THE LAW OF WAR 160-161 (2nd edition, 2000).
In a similar vein, there exist international human rights laws or IHRL 32 See M. M. MAGALLONA, FUNDAMENTALS OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 311-312
(not necessarily belonging to international humanitarian law) that are (2005) citing the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal
of jus cogens nature. Thus: Consequences of the Construc-
_______________
729man rights” are allowed to be derogated in times of “emergency which
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general threatens the life of the nation.”33Nevertheless, provisions on the right to
international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general life, prohibition from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, and
international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States
as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by
slavery remain free from any derogation whatsoever, having acquired a jus
a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character. cogens character.34
29 See Rafael Nieto-Navia, ‘International Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens) and We do not need to go further to determine whether these norms form
International Humanitarian Law’ part of “generally accepted principles of international law” to determine
(2001)<http://www.iccnow.org/documents/WritingColombiaEng.pdf> p. 26, accessed on
February 6, 2014. whether they are “part of the law of the land.”35 At minimum, they have
728 been incorporated through statutory provisions.
There is a consensus x x x about the jus cogens nature of a number of prohibitions Rep. Act No. 9851 defines and provides for the penalties of crimes
formulated in international human rights law x x x. These include at a against humanity, serious violations of IHL, genocide, and other crimes
minimum the prohibition of aggression, slavery and the slave trade, against humanity.36 This law provides for
genocide x x x, racial discrimination, apartheid and torture x x x, as well _______________
tion of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ Reports, 2004, par. 106.
33 See Art. 4, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or ICCPR. See also the Rome Statute which the Philippines ratified on August 30, 2011. See par. 10 of the
34 I. DETTER, THE LAW OF WAR 162 (2nd edition, 2000) citing Articles 6, 7, and 8 of the Preamble, Article 1, and Article 17 of the Rome Statute regarding the International Criminal
ICCPR. Court’s complementary jurisdiction over a case when a State party is unwilling or unable to
35 Consti., Art. II, sec. 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national carry out an investigation or prosecution.
policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the 731pines/New People’s Army/National Democratic Front or CPP/NPA/NDF
land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with
invoking the Geneva Conventions and its 1977 Additional Protocols.
all nations. (Emphasis provided)
36 Rep. Act No. 9851 (2009), sec. 4 (b). In case of a non-international armed conflict, serious One of these documents is the Declaration of Adherence to International
violations of common Article 3 to the four (4) Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, Humanitarian Law dated August 15, 1991, whereby the National
any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, Democratic Front “formally declare[d] its adherence to international
including members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors
de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:
humanitarian law, especially Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions
(1) Violence to life and person, in particular, willful killings, mutilation, cruel treatment as well as Protocol II additional to said conventions, in the conduct of armed
and torture; conflict in the Philippines.”39
(2) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading We may take judicial notice that on July 5, 1996, the National
treatment;
(3) Taking of hostages; and
Democratic Front issued the Declaration of Undertaking to Apply the
730the non-prescription of the prosecution of and execution of sentences Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I of 1977. The National
imposed with regard to the crimes defined in the Act.37 It also provides for Democratic Front stated that:
the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the crimes defined in the Being a party to the armed conflict, civil war or war of national
liberation and authorized by the revolutionary people and forces to
Act.38
represent them in diplomatic and other international relations in the
These crimes are, therefore, separate from or independent from the ongoing peace negotiations with the GRP, we the National Democratic
crime of rebellion even if they occur on the occasion of or argued to be Front of the Philippines hereby solemnly declare in good faith to
connected with the armed uprisings. undertake to apply the Geneva Conventions and Protocol I to the armed
Not only does the statute exist. Relevant to these cases are the conflict in accordance with Article 96, paragraph 3 in relation to Article
Declarations made by the Communist Party of the Philip- 1, paragraph 4 of Protocol I.
_______________ The NDFP is rightfully and dutifully cognizant that this declaration
(4) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment
x x x shall have in relation to the armed conflict with the GRP, the
pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are following effects:
generally recognized as indispensable. _______________
37 Rep. Act No. 9851 (2009), sec. 11. Non-prescription.—The crimes defined and
39 Declaration of Undertaking to Apply the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I of 1977,
penalized under this Act, their prosecution, and the execution of sentences imposed on their National Democratic Front of the Philippines Human Rights Monitoring Committee, Annex D, 98
account, shall not be subject to any prescription. (Booklet Number 6, 2005).
38 Rep. Act No. 9851 (2009), sec. 18. Philippine Courts, Prosecutors and Investigators.— 732
The Regional Trial Courts of the Philippines shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over a. the Geneva Conventions and Protocol I are brought into force
the crimes punishable under this Act. Their judgments may be appealed or elevated to the
Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court as provided by law.
for the NDFP as a Party to the conflict with immediate effect;
The Supreme Court shall designate special courts to try cases involving crimes punishable b. the NDFP assumes the same rights and obligations as those
under this Act. For these cases, the Commission on Human Rights, the Department of Justice, which have been assumed by a High Contracting Party to the
the Philippine National Police or other concerned law enforcement agencies shall designate Geneva Conventions and Protocol I; and
prosecutors or investigators as the case may be. c. the Geneva Conventions and this Protocol are equally binding
The State shall ensure that judges, prosecutors and investigators, especially those designated upon all Parties to the conflict.40(Emphasis in the original)
for purposes of this Act, receive effective training in human rights, International Humanitarian
Law and International Criminal Law.
In addition, in the context of peace negotiations, it appears that there is 7. The right not to be subjected to physical or mental torture, solitary
a Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and confinement, rape and sexual abuse, and other inhuman, cruel or
International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) executed by the degrading treatment, detention and punishment.
Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the xxxx
9. The right to substantive and procedural due process, to be presumed innocent
CPP/NPA/NDF. This agreement establishes the recognition of the
until proven guilty, and against self-incrimination.
existence, protection, and application of human rights and principles of
xxxx
international humanitarian law as well as provides the following rights and
protections to individuals by the CPP/NPA/NDF. The agreement partly PART IV
provides: RESPECT FOR INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN
PART III LAW
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS Article 1. In the exercise of their inherent rights, the Parties to the armed
Article 1. In the exercise of their inherent rights, the Parties shall adhere to and conflict shall adhere to and be
be bound by the principles and standards embodied in international instruments 734bound by the generally accepted principles and standards of international
on human rights. humanitarian law.
Article 2. This Agreement seeks to confront, remedy and prevent the most Article 2. These principles and standards apply to the following persons:
serious human rights violations in terms of civil and political rights, as well as to 1. civilians or those taking no active part in the hostilities;
uphold, protect and promote the full scope of human rights and fundamental 2. members of armed forces who have surrendered or laid down their arms;
freedoms, including: 3. those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds or any other cause;
_______________ 4. persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed
40 Declaration of Undertaking to Apply the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I of 1977, conflict; and,
National Democratic Front of the Philippines Human Rights Monitoring Committee, Annex D, 12- 5. relatives and duly authorized representatives of above-named persons.
13 (Booklet Number 6, 2005). Article 3. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in
733
any place whatsoever with respect to the persons enumerated in the preceding
1. The right to self-determination of the Filipino nation by virtue of which the Article 2:
people should fully and freely determine their political status, pursue their 1. violence to life and person, particularly killing or causing injury,
economic, social and cultural development, and dispose of their natural wealth being subjected to physical or mental torture, mutilation, corporal
and resources for their own welfare and benefit towards genuine national punishment, cruel or degrading treatment and all acts of violence and
independence, democracy, social justice and development.
reprisals, including hostage-taking, and acts against the physical well-
xxxx being, dignity, political convictions and other human rights;
3. The right of the victims and their families to seek justice for violations of human
2. holding anyone responsible for an act that she/he has not committed and
rights, including adequate compensation or indemnification, restitution and punishing anyone without complying with all the requisites of due process;
rehabilitation, and effective sanctions and guarantees against repetition and 3. requiring persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the
impunity.
armed conflict to disclose information other than their identity;
4. The right to life, especially against summary executions (salvagings),
4. desecration of the remains of those who have died in the course of the
involuntary disappearances, massacres and indiscriminate armed conflict or while under detention, and breach of duty to
bombardments of communities, and the right not to be subjected to 735tender immediately such remains to their families or to give them
campaigns of incitement to violence against one’s person. decent burial;
xxxx 5. failure to report the identity, personal condition and circumstances of
a person deprived of his/her liberty for reasons related to the armed
conflict to the Parties to enable them to perform their duties and (iv) mutilation;
responsibilities under this Agreement and under international (b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
humanitarian law;
(c) the taking of hostages;
x x x x (Emphasis provided) (d) collective punishments; and
(e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.
The CARHRIHL has provided a clear list of rights and duties that the 3. Any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict
parties must observe in recognizing the application of human rights and shall be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why these
measures have been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penal offences, such
international humanitarian laws. The CPP/NPA/NDF, parties to an persons shall be released with the minimum delay possible and in any event as soon as the
ongoing armed conflict and to which petitioners allegedly belong, are circumstances justifying the arrest, detention or internment have ceased to exist.
required to observe, at the minimum, the humane treatment of persons A4. No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty
of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced
involved in the conflict, whether hors de combat or a civilian.
by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized
In all these instruments, even spies are accorded protection under principles of regular judicial procedure, which include the following:
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Common Article 3 and 737
Additional Protocol II are broad enough to secure fundamental guarantees
to persons not granted prisoner of war or civilian status, such as protection IV
from summary execution and right to fair trial.41 These fundamental
guarantees are also found in Article 75, in relation to Articles 45 and 46 of Concomitantly, persons committing crimes against humanity orC serious
Additional Protocol I.42 Spies and civilians suspected of violations of international humanitarian law,
_______________
_______________
41 See J. M. Henckaerts & L. Doswald-Beck, CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN (a) the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the
LAW 2363 (vol. II, 2005). particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and
during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence;
42 Additional Protocol I, however, pertains to the protection of victims of international
(b) no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal
armed conflicts. Article 75 on Fundamental guarantees provides:
responsibility;
1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol,
persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more (c) no one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence on account of any act or
favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the national or international
in all circumstances and law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier
penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence
736being spies are also accorded protection under Rep. Act No. 9851. A was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the
_______________ imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;
(d) anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty
shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse
according to law;
distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other
(e) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence;
opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar
(f) no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt;
criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices
(g) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to examine, or have
of all such persons.
examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of
2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place
witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:
C(h) no one shall be prosecuted or punished by the same Party for an offence in
(a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in
respect of which a final judgement acquitting or convicting that person has been
particular:
previously pronounced under the same law and judicial procedure;
(i) murder;
(i) anyone prosecuted for an offence shall have the right to have the judgement
(ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;
pronounced publicly; and
(iii) corporal punishment; and
738international human rights laws, and Rep. Act No. 9851 must not be ACCORDINGLY, I concur that these petitions be dismissed and the
allowed to hide behind a doctrine crafted to recognize the different nature Regional Trial Courts be directed to hear the cases with due and deliberate
of armed uprisings as a result of political dissent. The contemporary view dispatch taking these views into consideration should the evidence so
is that these can never be considered as acts in furtherance of armed conflict warrant.
no matter what the motive. Incidentally, this is the view also apparently Consolidated petitions dismissed.
shared by the CPP/NPA/NDF and major insurgent groups that are part of Notes.—Courts retain the power to review findings of prosecutors in
the present government’s peace process. preliminary investigations, although in a mere few exceptional cases
_______________ showing grave abuse of discretion. (Tan, Jr. vs. Matsuura, 688 SCRA 263
(j) a convicted person shall be advised on conviction of his judicial and other remedies [2013])
and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised. A judge is not bound by the resolution of the public prosecutor who
5. Women whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to the armed conflict conducted the preliminary investigation and must himself ascertain from
shall be held in quarters separated from men’s quarters. They shall be under the immediate
the latter’s findings and supporting documents whether probable cause
supervision of women. Nevertheless, in cases where families are detained or interned, they
shall, whenever possible, be held in the same place and accommodated as family units. exists for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest. (De Los Santos-Dio vs.
6. Persons who are arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to the armed Court of Appeals, 699 SCRA 614 [2013])
conflict shall enjoy the protection provided by this Article until their final release, ——o0o——
repatriation or re-establishment, even after the end of the armed conflict.
7. In order to avoid any doubt concerning the prosecution and trial of persons accused of
war crimes or crimes against humanity, the following principles shall apply: © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
(a) persons who are accused of such crimes should be submitted for the purpose of
prosecution and trial in accordance with the applicable rules of international law; and
(b) any such persons who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the
Conventions or this Protocol shall be accorded the treatment provided by this Article,
whether or not the crimes of which they are accused constitute grave breaches of the
Conventions or of this Protocol.
8. No provision of this Article may be construed as limiting or infringing any other more
favourable provision granting greater protection, under any applicable rules of
international law, to persons covered by paragraph 1.
739
We, therefore, should nuance our interpretation of what will constitute
rebellion.
The rebel, in his or her effort to assert a better view of humanity, cannot
negate himself or herself. Torture and summary execution of enemies or
allies are never acts of courage. They demean those who sacrificed and those
who gave their lives so that others may live justly and enjoy the blessings
of more meaningful freedoms.
Torture and summary execution — in any context — are shameful,
naked brutal acts of those who may have simply been transformed into
desperate cowards. Those who may have suffered or may have died because
of these acts deserve better than to be told that they did so in the hands of
a rebel.
[No. L-5803. November 29, 1954] MONTEMAYOR, J.:
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and
appellee, vs. NARCISO UMALI, ET AL., defendants. NARCISO UMALI, Narciso Umali, Epifanio Pasumbal, and Isidro Capino are appealing
EPIFANIO PASUMBAL and ISIDRO CAPINO, defendants and appellants. directly to this Tribunal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
186 Quezon province finding them guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with
186 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery, and sentencing
People vs. Umali, et al. each of them to "life imprisonment, other acces-
187
1. 1.CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; INFORMATION CHARGING MORE THAN VOL. 96, NOVEMBER 29, 1954 187
ONE OFFENSE; ACCUSED MAY BE PROPERLY CONVICTED IF NO People vs. Umali, et al.
OBJECTION HAS BEEN INTERPOSED.—Although an information sories of the law, to indemnify jointly and severally Marcial Punsalan in the
charges more than one offense, contrary to section 12, Rule 106 and amount of P24,023; Valentin Robles in the amount of P10,000; Yao Cabon
section 2(e), Rule 113, the defendants having interposed no objection in the amount of P700; Claro Robles in the amount of P12,800; Pocho Guan
thereto, they were properly tried and may be convicted of said several and in the amount of P600; the heirs of Domingo Pisigan in the amount of
separate crimes if found guilty.
P6,000; the heirs of Vicente Soriano in the amount of P6,000; the heirs of
Leocadio Untalan in the amount of P6,000; Patrolman Pedro Lacorte in the
1. 2.CRIMINAL LAW; SEDITION.—Where the purpose of the raid and acts
of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up arms, were not exactly amount of P500; Lazaro Ortega in the amount of P300; Hilarion Aselo in
against the Government and for the purpose of doing the things defined the amount of P300; Calixto Rivano in the amount of P50; Melecio Garcia
in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code under rebellion, but rather, by in the amount of P60; and Juanito Lector in the amount of P90, each to pay
means of force and intimidation, to inf lict an act of hate or revenge upon one fifteenth of the costs, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
the person or property of a public official, the crime committed is sedition. insolvency due to the nature of the principal penalty that is imposed upon
them."
1. 3.ID.; ID.; ROBBERIES COMMITTED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT; The complex crime of which appellants were found guilty was said to
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE.—The purpose of the raiders was to kidnap or have been committed during the raid staged in the town of Tiaong, Quezon,
kill the mayor and destroy his house. Robberies were committed by only between 8:00 and 9:00 in the evening of November 14, 1951, by armed men.
some of the raiders, presumably dissidents, as an afterthought, because It is not denied that such a raid took place resulting in the burning down
of the opportunity offered by the confusion and disorder resulting from the
and complete destruction of the house of Mayor Marcial Punzalan including
shooting and the burning of the houses. Held: For these robberies only
its content valued at P24,023; the house of Valentin Robles valued at
those who actually took part therein are responsible.
P10,000, and the house of one Mortega, the death of Patrolman Domingo
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Quezon. Pisigan and civilians Vicente Soriano and Leocadio Untalan, and the
Victoriano, J. wounding of Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and five civilians; that during and
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. after the burning of the houses, some of the raiders engaged in looting,
Jose P. Laurel, Cipriano Primicias, Alejo Mabanag,Manuel robbing one house and two Chinese stores; and that the raiders were finally
Concordia, P. M. Stuart Del Rosario, Tomas R. Umali, Eufemio E. De dispersed and driven from the town by the Philippine Army soldiers
Mesa and Edmundo T. Zepeda for appellants. stationed in the town led by Captain Alzate.
Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Martiniano P. Vivo for To understand the reason for and object of the raid we have to go into
appellee. the political situation in Tiaong not only shortly before that raid but one or
two years before it. Narciso Umali and Marcial Punzalan were old time f Col. Gelveson, Provincial Commander, sent a telegram stating that the
riends and belonged to the same political faction. In the general firearms taken away from the men were licensed. As a result the complaint
188 was dismissed. This incident was naturally resented by Umali and spurred
188 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED him to have a showdown with Punzalan.
People vs. Umali, et al. Then the elections of 1951 (November 13) approached and Punzalan ran
elections of 1947 Umali campaigned for Punzalan who later was elected for reelection. To oppose him, and to clip his political wings and definitely
Mayor of Tiaong. In the elections of 1949 Punzalan in his turn campaigned blast his ambition for continued power and influence in Tiaong, Umali
and worked for Narciso Umali resulting in the latter's election as picked Epifanio Pasumbal, his trusted leader.
Congressman. However, these friendly relations between the two did not The pre-election campaign and fight waged by both factions—Punzalan
endure. In the words of Punzalan, Narciso Umali who as Congressman and Pasumbal, was intense and bitter, even ruthless. The election was to
regarded himself as the political head and leader in that region including be a test of political strength and would determine who was who in
Tiaong, became jealous because of his (Punzalan's) fast growing popularity Tiaong,—Umali or Punzalan. Umali spoke at political meetings, extolling
among the people of Tiaong who looked to him instead of Umali for political the virtues of Pasumbal and the benefits and advantages that would accrue
guidance, leadership, and f avors. In time the strain in their relations to the town if he was elected, at the same time bitterly attacking Punzalan,
became such that they ceased to have any dealings with each other and they accusing him of dishonesty, corruption in office, abuse of power, etc. At one
even filed mutual accusations. According to Punzalan, in May 1950, Umali of those meetings he told the audience not to vote for Punzalan because he
induced about twenty-six special policemen of his (Punzalan's) to flee to the would not be elected and that even if he won the election, he would not sit
mountains with their arms and join the Huks, this in order to discredit for blood will flow, and that he (Umali) had already prepared a golden coffin
Punzalan's administration; that he was later able to contact two of his for him (Punzalan). After denying the charges, in retort, Punzalan would
tweny-six policemen and tried to persuade them to return to the town and say that Umali as a Congressman was useless, and that he did not even
to the service, but they told him that they and their companions would not attend the sessions and that his chair in Congress had gathered dust, even
surrender except with and through the intervention of Congressman Umali, cobwebs.
and so Punzalan had to seek Umali's intervention which resulted in the To help in the Umali-Pasumbal campaign, Amado Mendoza who later
surrender of the 26 men with their firearms; that thereafter Umali wanted was to play the role of star witness for the prosecution, was drafted. He was
to have their firearms, claiming that they all belonged to him from his a compadre of Pasumbal and had had some experience in political
guerrilla days when he was a colonel, and that after liberation he had campaigns, and although he was not exactly a model citizen, being
merely loaned them to the municipal authorities of Tiaong to help keep sometimes given to drunkenness, still, he had the gift of speech and
peace and order; and that the ref usal of Punzalan to grant Umali's request persuasion. In various political meetings he delivered speeches for
further strained their relations, and that thereafter Umali would not speak Pasumbal. He was ever at the back and call of Umali and Pasumbal, and
to him even when they happened to meet at parties. naturally
On September 19, 1951, the Chief of Police of Punzalan disarmed four of 190
Umali's men, including his bodyguard Isidro Capino who were then charged 190 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
with illegal possession of firearms. Umali interceded for his men and People vs. Umali, et al.
189 he frequented the latter's houses or headquarters. The result of the
VOL. 96, NOVEMBER 29, 1954 189 elections plainly showed that Punzalan was the political master and leader
People vs. Umali, et al. in Tiaong. He beat Pasumbal by an overwhelming majority of 2,221 votes.
Naturally, Umali and Pasumbal were keenly disappointed, and according
to the evidence, adopted measures calculated to frustrate Punzalan's school premises with instructions by Umali to wait for Commander Abeng
victory,. even as prophesied by Umali himself in one of his pre-election and the Huks and point to them the house of Punzalan. After waiting for
speeches about blood flowing and gold coffin. sometime, Abeng and his troops numbering about fifty, armed with garands
Going back to the raid staged in Tiaong on November 14, 1951, it is well and carbines, arrived and after explaining his identity and his mission to
to make a short narration of the happenings shortly before it, established Abeng, he led the dissidents or part of the contingent in the direction of
by the evidence, so as to ascertain and be informed of the reason or purpose Punzalan's house and on arriving in front of the bodega of Robles, he
of said raid, the persons behind it, and those who took part in it. According pointed out Punzalan's house and then walked toward his home, leaving
to the testimony of Amado Mendoza, in the morning of November 12th, that the Huks who proceeded to lie flat in a canal. Before reaching his house, he
is, on the eve of the election, at the house of Pasumbal's father, then being already heard shots, so, he evacuated his family to their dugout in his yard.
used as his electoral headquarters, he heard Umali instruct Pasumbal to While doing so he and his wife Catalina Tinapunan saw armed men in the
contact the Huks through Commander Abeng so that Punzalan will be lanzones grove just across the street from their house, belonging to the
killed, Pasumbal complying with the order of his Chief (Umali) went to the father of Umali, and among those men they saw Congressman Umali
mountains which were quite near the town and held a conference with holding a revolver, in the company of Huk Commander Torio and about 20
Commander Abeng. It would seem that Umali and Pasumbal had a feeling armed men. Afterwards they saw Umali and his companions leave in the
that Punzalan was going to win in the elections the next day, and that his direction of Taguan, by way of the railroad tracks.
death was the surest way to eliminate him from the electoral fight. It would appear from the evidence that the raid was well-planned. As a
The conference between Pasumbal and Commander Abeng on November diversionary measure, part of the attacking force was deployed toward the
12th was witnessed and testified to by Nazario Añonuevo, a Huk who was camp or station of the Army (part of 8th B.C.T.) in the suburbs and
under Commander Abeng, and who later took an active part in the raid. In 192
the evening of the same day, Mendoza heard Pasumbal report to Umali 192 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
about his conference 'with Commander Abeng, saying that the latter was People vs. Umali, et al.
agreeable to the proposition and had even outlined the manner of attack, the camp was fired upon, not exactly to destroy or drive out that Army unit
that the Huks would enter the town (Tiaong) under Commander Lucio and but to keep it from going to the rescue and aid of the main objective of the
Aladin, the latter to lead the sector towards the raid. The rest of the raiding party went toward Punzalan's house and
191 attacked it with automatic weapons, hand grenades, and even with bottles
VOL. 96, NOVEMBER 29, 1954 191 filled with gasoline (popularly known as Molotov's cocktail). It was evident
People vs. Umali, et al. that the purpose of the attack on Punzalan's house was to kill him.
East; but that Commander Abeng had suggested that the raid be postponed Fortunately, however, and apparently unknown to the attackers and those
because Pasumbal may yet win the election the following day, thereby who designed the raid, at six o'clock that morning of November 14th
rendering unnecessary the raid and the killing of Punzalan, Punzalan and his Chief of Police had left Tiaong to go to Lucena, the capital,
Continuing with the testimony of Amado Mendoza, he told the court that to report the results of the election to the Governor.
as per instructions of Umali he went to the house of the latter, in the The attack on the house of Punzalan was witnessed and described by
evening of November 14th, the day following the election, with the result of several persons, including policemen who happened to be near the house.
the election already known, namely, the decisive victory of Punzalan over Policeman Tomas Maguare who was in front of the house saw Epifanio
Pasumbal. He was told by Umali to come with him, and Pasumbal and the Pasumbal, Isidro Umali (brother of Congressman Umali) and Moises
three boarded a jeep with Pasumbal at the wheel. They drove toward the Escueta enter the gate of Punzalan's house and take part in the firing.
Tiaong Elementary School and once there he (Mendoza) was left at the Policeman Pedro Lacorte who was stationed as guard at the gate of Mayor
Punzalan's house recognized defendant Isidro Capino as one of those firing mountains when the Army soldiers dispersed and drove them out of the
at the house. Lacorte said that he was guarding the house of Punzalan when town and so he was finally captured by said soldiers.
he suddenly heard shots coming from the sides of the house and going over As to defendants Pasumbal and Capino, their participation in and
to the place to investigate, he saw armed men in fatigue and shouting "burn responsibility for the raid was duly established not only by the going of
the house of Mayor Punzalan"; that he was hit on the left check and later Pasumbal on November 12th to the mountains following instructions of
Isidro Capino threw at him a hand grenade and he was hit in the right Umali, and conferring with Commander Abeng asking him to raid Tiaong
forearm and in the right eye and became permanently blind in said eye. and kill Punzalan, but also by the fact that Pasumbal and Capino in the
Mateo Galit, laundryman who was sitting inside a jeep parked in front of afternoon or evening of November 14th met the Huks at the Osiw River as
the house of Punzalan recognized defendant Pasumbal as one of the the dissidents were on their way to Tiaong and later Pasumbal and Capino
attackers who, once in the yard said in a loud voice as though addressing were seen in the
somebody in the house "Pare, come down." Mrs. Punzalan who was then 194
inside the house related to the court that at about eight in the evening while 194 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
she was resting she heard shots and rapid People vs. Umali, et al.
193 yard of Punzalan firing at the house with automatic weapons and hand
VOL. 96, NOVEMBER 29, 1954 193 grenades.
People vs. Umali, et al. What about Umali? His criminal responsibility was also established, tho
firing. As a precaution she took her children to the bathroom. Then she indirectly. We have the testimony of Amado Mendoza who heard him
noticed that her house was being fired at because the glass window panes instructing Pasumbal to contact Commander Abeng and ask him to raid
were being shattered and she heard the explosion of a hand grenade inside Tiaong and kill Punzalan. The rest of the evidence is more or less
the house, followed by flares in the sala and burning of blankets and circumstantial, but nonetheless strong and convincing. No one saw him
mosquito nets in the bedrooms and she noticed the smell of smoke of take part in the firing and attack on the house of Punzalan; nor was he seen
gasoline. Realizing the great danger, she and the children ran out of the near or around said house. Because of his important position as
house and went to hide in the house of a neighbor. Congressman, perchance he did not wish to figure too prominently in the
Nazario Añonuevo declared in court that he was a f armer and was actual raid. Besides, he would seem to have already given out all the
picked up and seized by Huk Commander Tommy sometime in August instructions necessary and he could well stay in the background. However,
1951, and was taken to Mt. Banahaw in Laguna and mustered in the ranks during the raid, not very far from Punzalan's house he was seen in the
of the Huks; that just before the elections of November 13, 1951, he saw lanzonesan of his father, holding a revolver and in the company of about 20
Pasumbal come to the mountains near Tiaong and talk to Commander armed men with Huk Commander Torio, evidently observing and waiting
Abeng; that on November 14th by order of Commander Abeng he with other for developments. Then he and his companions left in the direction of
Huks left Mt. Banahaw for Tiaong; that when they crossed the Osiw River Taguan.
already near Tiaong, they were met by Pasumbal and Capino; that when Umali and Pasumbal, however, claim that during the raid, they were in
they were at the outskirts of the town, he and the party were told by the home of Pasumbal in Taguan, about seven kilometers away from Tiaong
Commander Tommy to attack the 8th BCT camp in Tiaong to prevent the where a consolation party was being held. There is ample evidence however
sending of army help to the town proper; that he took part in firing on the to the effect that they arrived in Pasumbal's home only around midnight.
camp which returned the fire in the course of which he was wounded; and An Army soldier named Cabalona who happened to be in Pasumbal's home
that because of his wound he could not escape with his companions to the arriving there earlier in the evening and who was invited to take some
refreshments said that he did not see the two men until they arrived about
midnight when the Army reinforcements from Lucena passed by on their gone to Tiaong. Instead the two continued on their way to the capital
way to Tiaong. Thus, we have this chain of circumstances that does not (Lucena) where before dawn, they went and contacted Provincial Fiscal
speak in favor of Umali, or Pasumbal for that matter. But this is not all. Mayo, a
There is the rather strange and unexplained, at least not satisfactorily, 196
behaviour of Umali and Pasumbal that evening of November 14th. 196 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Assuming for a moment as they claim, that the two were not in Tiaong at People vs. Umali, et al.
the commencement of the raid between 8:00 first cousin of Umali, and Assistant Fiscal Reyes and later had these two
195 officials accompany them to the Army camp to see Col. Gelveson, not f or
VOL. 96, NOVEMBER 29, 1954 195 the purpose of asking for the sending of aid or reinforcement to Tiaong but
People vs. Umali, et al. presumably to show to the prosecution officials, specially the Army
and 9:00 p.m., and during the whole time the raid lasted, and that they Commander that they (Umali and Pasumbal) had nothing to do whatsoever
were all that time in the home of Pasumbal in Taguan, still, according to with the raid. Umali said he was trying to avoid and keep clear of Tiaong
their own evidence, they were informed by persons coming or fleeing from because he might be suspected of having had some connection with the raid
Tiaong that there was a raid going on there, and that some houses were and might be the object of reprisal. As a matter of fact, according to Umali
burning. As a matter of fact, considering the proximity of Taguan to Tiaong, himself, while still in Taguan that evening and before he went to
a distance of about seven kilometers and the stillness and darkness of the Candelaria, somebody had informed him that Col. Legaspi of the Army was
night, the fire and the glow produced by the burning of three houses and looking for him. Instead of seeking Col. Legaspi and find out what was
the noise produced by the firing of automatic weapons and the explosion of wanted of him, he left in the opposite direction and fled to Candelaria and
the hand grenades and bottles of gasoline, could and must have been seen later to Lucena, and the next day he took the train for Manila. This strange
and heard f rom Taguan. The natural and logical reaction on the part of act and behaviour of the two men, particularly Umali, all contrary to
Umali and Pasumbal would have been to rush to Tiaong, see what had impulse and natural reaction, and what other people would ordinarily have
really happened and then render help and give succor to the stricken done under the circumstances, prompted the trial court in its decision to
residents, including their own relatives. It will be remembered that the repeat the old saying "The guilty man flees even if no one pursues, but the
houses of the fathers of Umali and Pasumbal were in Tiaong and their innocent stands bold as a lion." We might just as well reproduce that portion
parents and relatives were residing there. And yet, instead of following a of the decision of the trial court, to wit:
natural impulse and urge to go to Tiaong, they fled in the opposite direction "* * *. Considering the fact that Taguan is very near Tiaong so that even taking it
towards Candelaria. And Umali instead of taking the road, purposely for granted as true, for the sake of argument, that the said accused were really at
avoided the same and preferred to hike through coconut groves so that upon the party of Pasumbal on the night in question, that would not prevent them from
arriving in Candelaria, he was wet, and spattered and very tired. Had they being in Tiaong between 8 and 9. Besides, why was it that night the hasaglamp
was replaced with candles when the reinforcements passed through Taguan about
wanted to render any help to Tiaong they could have asked the police
the midnight of November 14, 1951. Why did Congressman Umali and company
authorities of Candelaria to send a rescue party to that town. Or better still,
instead of going to Tiaong which was the scene of the attack hurried towards
when the army reinforcements from Lucena sent at the instance of Candelaria, after the reinforcement has passed and went to the house of Felix Ona
Punzalan, who at about eight or nine that evening was returning to Tiaong walking through a muddy path under the coconut groves? Why was Umali afraid
from Lucena, found at the barrio or sitio of Lusakan near Tiaong that there to pass through the provincial road and preferred a muddy road instead? Was he
was fighting in the town, he immediately returned to Lucena to get army trying to conceal himself ? Why did Pasumbal and company also go to the house of
reinforcements to relieve his town, was passing by Taguan, where they Ona? Why did they
were, Umali and Pasumbal could have joined said reinf forcements and 197
VOL. 96, NOVEMBER 29, 1954 197 that on November 18 of the same year Punzalan wrote to President Quirino
People vs. Umali, et al. denouncing Congressman Umali for fraternizing with the Huks and
go to the house of Felix Ona instead of going to the house of Manalo who could conducting a campaign among them in preparation for the elections the
have given them better protection? And again why did Congressman Umali and following year. And we may also consider the fact that the town of Tiaong
the other co-accused repaired and sought the company of Fiscal Reyes in going at stands at the foothills of Mt. Banahaw where the dissidents under
such an early hour to the Army authorities, did they fear any reprisal? From Commander Abeng, Tommy, Lucio, Aladin, and others had their hideout,
whom? Why did Umali go to Manila from Lucena on November 16, 1951? 'The so that it was not difficult for residents of Tiaong like Umali and Pasumbal
guilty man flees even if no one pursues, but the innocent stands bold as a lion.'" to communicate and even associate with the dissidents in that region.
At first blush it would appear rather unbelievable that Umali and After carefully considering all the evidence in the case, we are
Pasumbal, particularly the former should seek the aids of the Huks in order constrained to agree with the trial court that the three appellants are
to put down and eliminate their political enemy Punzalan. It would seem guilty. Besides, the determination of this case, in great measure, hinges on
rather strange and anomalous that a member of Congress should have the credibility of witnesses. The learned trial court which had the
friendly relations with the dissidents whom the Government had been opportunity of observing the demeanor of witnesses on the stand and
fighting all these years. But if we study the evidence, it will be found that gauging their sincerity and evaluating their testimony, decided the
the reason and the explanation are there. As already stated, during the Government witnesses, including Amado Mendoza, to be more credible and
Japanese occupation, to further the resistance movement, guerrillas were reliable. And we find nothing in the record to warrant correction or reversal
organized in different parts of the Philippines. One of these was the of the stand and finding of the trial court on the matter. We have not
guerrilla unit known as President Quezon's Own Guerrillas (PQOG) overlooked the rather belated retraction of Amado Mendoza made on
operating in the provinces of Tayabas (now Quezon) and Laguna. Umali, October 31, 1952, about a year and 9 months after he testified in court.
Pasumbal, Commander Abeng and even Punzalan himself were officers in Considering the circumstances surrounding the making of this affidavit or
this guerrilla unit, Umali attaining the rank of colonel, and Pasumbal and retraction, the late date at which it was made, the reasons given by him for
Punzalan that of Lieutenant-colonel, Pasumbal then being known as making it and the fact that when he testified in court under the observation
"Panzer". After Liberation, Abeng joined the dissidents, and became a Huk and scrutiny of the trial court bearing in mind that he was the star witness
Commander. It was not unnatural that Umali and Pasumbal should for the prosecution and his testimony naturally extremely important, and
continue their friendship and association with Commander Abeng and seek the trial court after the opportunity given to it of observing his demeanor
his aid when convenient and necessary. Umali admitted that he knew Huk while on the witness stand had regarded him as a witness, sin-
Commander Kasilag. Graciano Ramos, one of the witnesses of the 199
prosecution told the court that way back in May 1950, in a barrio of San VOL. 96, NOVEMBER 29, 1954 199
Pablo City he saw Umali confer with Commander Kasilag, which People vs. Umali, et al.
Commander after the conference told his soldiers including Ramos that cere, and his testimony truthful, and considering further the case with
Umali wanted the Huks to raid Tiaong, burn the presidencia and kidnap which affidavits of retraction of this nature are obtained, we confess that
Punzalan. Of course, the last part of we are not impressed with such retraction of Mendoza.
198
The last point to be determined is the nature of the offense or offenses
198 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
committed. Appellants were charged with and convicted of the complex
People vs. Umali, et al. crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and
the testimony may be regarded as hearsay, but the f act is that Umali robbery. Is there such a complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder,
conferred with a Huk Commander as early as 1950. Then we have the fact etc? While the Solicitor General in his brief claims that appellants are
guilty of said complex crime and in support of his stand "asks for leave to constitute sedition. As regards the crime of robbery with which appellants
incorporate by reference" his previous arguments in opposing Umali's were charged and of which they were convicted, we are also of the opinion
petition for bail, counsel for appellants considered it unnecessary to discuss that it was not one of the purposes of the raid, which was mainly to kidnap
the existence or non-existence of such complex crime, saying that the nature or kill Punzalan and destroy his house. The robberies were actually
of the crime committed "is of no moment to herein appellants because they committed by only some of the raiders, presumably dissidents, as an
had absolutely no part in it whatsoever". For the present, and with respect afterthought, because of the opportunity offered by the confusion and
to this particular case, we deem it unecessary to decide this important and disorder resulting from the shooting and the burning of the three houses,
controversial question, defering its consideration and determination to the articles being intended presumably to replenish the supplies of the
another case or occasion more opportune, when it is more directly and dissidents in the mountains. For these robberies, only those who actually
squarely raised and both parties given an opportunity to discuss and argue took part therein are responsible, and not the three appellants herein. With
the question more adequately and exhaustively. Considering that, respect to the crime of multiple frustrated murder, while the assault upon
assuming for the moment that there is no such complex crime of rebellion policeman Pedro Lacorte with a hand grenade causing him injuries
with murder, etc., and that consequently appellants could not have been resulting in his blindness in one eye, may be regarded as frustrated murder;
legally charged with, much less convicted of said complex crime, and the the wounding of Ortega, Aselo, Rivano, Garcia and Lector should be
information should therefore, be regarded as having charged more than one considered as mere physical injuries.
offense, contrary to Rule 106, section 12 and Rule 113, section 2 (e), of the The crimes committed are, therefore, those of sedition, multiple murder,
Rules of Court, but that appellants having interposed no objection thereto, arson, frustrated murder and physical
they were properly tried f or and lawfully ully convicted if guilty of the 201
several, separate crimes charged therein, we have decided and we rule that VOL. 96, NOVEMBER 29, 1954 201
the appellants may properly be convicted of said several and separate People vs. Umali, et al.
crimes, as hereinafter specified. We feel particularly supported and just- injuries. The murders may not be qualified by evident premeditation
200 because the premeditation was for the killing of Punzalan. The result was
200 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED the killing of three others not intended by the raiders (People vs. Guillen,
People vs. Umali, et al. 47 Off. Gaz., No. 7, p. 3433 and People vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil., 967). The
ified in this stand that we take, by the 'result of the case, namely, that the killing may, however, be qualified by treachery, the raiders using firearms
prison sentence we impose does not exceed, except perhaps in actual against which the victims were defenseless, with the aggravating
duration, that meted out by the Court below, which is life imprisonment. circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The three murders may be
We are convinced that the principal and main, tho not necessarily the punished with the penalty of death. However, because of lack of the
most serious, crime committed here was not rebellion but rather that of necessary votes, the penalty should be life imprisonment.
sedition. The purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in rising publicly We deem it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised by the
and taking up arms was not exactly against the Government and for the appellants in their brief.
purpose of doing the things defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code In conclusion, we find appellants guilty of sedition, multiple murder,
under rebellion. The raiders did not even attack the Presidencia, the seat arson, frustrated murder and physical injuries. For the crime of sedition
of local Government. Rather, the object was to attain by means of force, each of the appellants is sentenced to 5 years of prisión correccional and to
intimidation, etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon pay a fine of P4,000; for each of the three murders, each of the appellants
the person or property of a public official, namely, Punzalan who was then is sentenced to life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of each victim
Mayor of Tiaong. Under Article 139 of the same Code this was sufficient to in the sum of P6,000; and for the arson, for which we impose the maximum
penalty provided in Article 321, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, for
the reason that the raiders in setting fire to the buildings, particularly the
house of Punzalan, they knew that it was then occupied by one or more
persons, because they even and actually saw an old lady, the mother of
Punzalan, at the window, and in view of the aggravating circumstances of
nighttime, each of the appellants is sentenced to reclusión perpetua and to
pay the indemnities mentioned in the decision of the lower court. It shall be
understood, however, that pursuant to the provisions of Article 70 of the
Revised Penal Code the duration of all penalties shall not exceed 40 years.
In view of the heavy penalties already imposed and their long duration, we
find it unnecessary to fix and impose the prison sentences corresponding to
frustrated murder and physical injuries; however, the sums awarded the
victims (Lacorte, Ortega,
202
202 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bernardo, et al. vs. Bernardo, et al.
Aselo, Rivano, Garcia and Lector), by the court below will stand. With these
modifications, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs.
Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista
Angelo, Concepción and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed with modifications.
_____________