7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

1/74

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-37396 April 30, 1979

MARCELINO LONTOK, JR.,petitioner,

vs.

HON. ALFREDO GORGONIO, as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court of San Juan,

Rizal, respondent.

Marcelino Lontok, Jr., in his own behalf.

Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.

AQUINO, J.:

This case is about the propriety of an information containing the charge of "reckless imprudenceresulting in damage to property and multiple physical injuries".

On March 29, 1973, Marcelino Lontok, Jr. was charged with that delito compuestointhe municipal court of San Juan, Rizal. In the information, it was alleged that on November 14,

1972, while Lontok was recklessly driving hisMercedes Benz car, he bumped a passenger jeep

and caused damaged to it in the sum of P780 and that the bumping also caused physical injuriesto three passengers who were incapacitated from performing their customary labor for a periodof less than ten days (Criminal Case No. 26116).

Lontok filed a motion to quash that part of the information wherein the offense of lesioneslevesthrough reckless imprudence is charged. He contended that, because that offense prescribes

in two months and it was committed on November 14, 1972, the last day of the sixty-day period

for filing the charge as to that offense was January 14, 1973. He prayed that the information beamended by excluding that light offense.

The fiscal opposed the motion to quash. The municipal court denied it. Lontok pleaded not guilty

upon arraignment. But instead of going to trial, he filed in this Court on August 30, 1973 apetition wherein he prayed that the amendment of the information be ordered by deleting the

portion thereof wherein the offense of slight physical injuries through reckless imprudencedischarged.

The Solicitor General in his comment agrees with Lontok's view that damage to property throughreckless imprudence cannot be complexed with a light offense, that the light offense had already

prescribed, and that two informations should have been filed. He manifested that he would ask

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

2/74

the prosecuting fiscal to amend the information. Nevertheless, he concluded that since Lontok

did not raise any jurisdictional issue, his petition for certiorari was not proper and, therefore, it

should be dismissed.

The issue is whether Lontok, over his objection, can be tried by the municipal court on an

information charging the complex crime of damage to property in the sum of p780 and lesioneslevesthrough reckless imprudence.

We hold that he should be tried only for damage to property through reckless imprudence,which, being punished by a maximum fine of P2,340, a correctional penalty, is a less grave

felony (Arts. 9, 25 and 26 and 365, RevisedPenal Code). As such, it cannot be complexed with

the light offense of lesiones levesthrough reckless imprudence which, as correctly contended byLontok, had already prescribed since that crime prescribes in sixty days.

There is a complex crime when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave feloniesor when a grave or less grave offense is a means of committing another grave or less grave

offense.

As originally enacted, article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provided that the crime is complex

when a single act constitutes two or more crimes, or when an offense is a necessary means of

committing the other. Commonwealth Act No. 4000 amended article 48 by substituting thewords "grave or less grave felonies" for the word "crimes" in the original version, thuseliminating a light felony as a component part of a complex crime.

Parenthetically, it may be noted in passing that the concept of complex crime was applied

in criminal negligenceor quasi offenses (People vs. Lara, 75 Phil. 786 and People vs. Agito, 103

Phil. 526, regarding multiple homicide through reckless imprudence; People vs. Rodis, 105 Phil.

1294, regarding malversation through falsification by reckless negligence; Samson vs. Court ofAppeals, 103 Phil. 277, regarding estafa through falsification by reckless negligence; Angeles vs.

Jose, 96 Phil. 151; Lapuz vs. Court of Appeals, 94 Phil, 710 and People vs. Vendiola, 115 Phil.

122, regarding homicide, grave physical injuries and grave damage to property, all throughreckless imprudence.).

In all the foregoing cases, it is assumed that reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself but issimply a way of committing a crime and it merely determines a lower degree of criminal

liability. Negligence becomes a punishable act when it results in a crime (People vs. Faller 67

Phil. 529).

Applying article 48, it follows that if one offense is light. there is no complex crime. The

resulting offenses may be treated as a separate or the light felony may be absorbed by the grave

felony. Thus, the light felonies of damage to property and slight physical injuries, both resultingfrom a single act of imprudence, do not constitute a complex crime. They cannot be charged in

one information. They are separate offenses subject to distinct penalties (People vs. Turla, 50

Phil. 1001; See People vs. Estipona, 70 Phil. 513).

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

3/74

Where the single act of imprudence resulted in double less serious physical injuries, damage to

property amounting to P10,000 and slight physical injuries, a chief of police did not err in filing

a separate complaint for the slight physical injuries and another complaint for the lesiones menos

gravesand damage to property (Arcaya vs. Teleron, L-37446, May 31, 1974, 5 7 SCRA 363,

365).

A chief of police likewise did not err in filing separate complaints for slight physical injuries and

grave oral defamation committed on the same occasion by one person against the same victim

(Manduriao vs. Habana, L- 28069, August 18, 1977,78 SCRA 241).

Where a complaint for slight physical injuries and grave threats was filed in the justice of the

peace court under the old Judiciary Law, the said court had jurisdiction to try the slight physicalinjuries case and could only undertake the preliminary investigation of the latter offense (People

vs. Linatoc, 74 Phil. 586. See People vs. Acierto 57 Phil. 614 and People vs. Benitez, 73 Phil.

671).

The case of Angeles vs. Jose, 96 Phil. 151, cited by investigating fiscal, is different from theinstant case because in that case the negligent act resulted in the offenses of lesiones menos

gravesand damage to property which were both less grave felonies and which, therefore,constituted a complex crime

In the instant case, following the ruling in the Turla case, the offense of lesiones levesthroughreckless imprudence should have been charged in a separate information. And since, as a light

offense, it prescribes in two months, Lontok's criminal liability therefor was already extinguished

(Arts. 89151, 90 and 91, Revised Penal Code in relation to sec. 2[e] and [f] Rule 117, Rules ofCourt). The trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion in not sustaining Lontok's motion

to quash that part of the information charging him with that light offense.

WHEREFORE, the lower court's orders of May 21 and July 12, 1973 are set aside. It is ordered

to try Lontok only for damage to property through reckless imprudence. The information need

not be amended, it being understood that Lontok has no more culpability for the offense of slightphysical injuries through reckless imprudence charged therein. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando C.J. (Acting ), Barredo, Antonio, Concepcion, Jr. and Santos, JJ., concur,

Abad Santos, J., took no part.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

4/74

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-6025 May 30, 1964

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,

vs.AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.,accused,

AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.,defendants-appellants.

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

G.R. No. L-6026 May 30, 1964

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.

BAYANI ESPIRITU, ET AL.,accused,

BAYANI ESPIRITU and TEOPISTA VALERIO,defendants-appellants.

LABRADOR,J.:

This is the appeal prosecuted by the defendants from the judgment rendered by the Court of First

Instance of Manila, Hon. Agustin P. Montesa, presiding, in its Criminal Case No. 15841,People

vs. Amado V. Hernandez, et al., and Criminal Case No. 15479,People vs. Bayani Espiritu, et al.In Criminal Case No. 15841 (G.R. No. L-6026) the charge is for Rebellion with Multiple

Murder, Arsons and Robberies; the appellants are Amado V. Hernandez, Juan J. Cruz, Genaro dela Cruz, Amado Racanday, Fermin Rodillas and Julian Lumanog; Aquilino Bunsol, Adriano

Samson and Andres Baisa, Jr. were among those sentenced in the judgment appealed from, but

they have withdrawn their appeal. In Criminal Case No. 15479 (G.R. No. L-6026) the charge isfor rebellion with murders, arsons and kidnappings; the accused are Bayani Espiritu Teopista

Valerio and Andres Balsa, Jr.; they all appealed but Andres Balsa, Jr. withdrew his appeal.

The information filed against defendants Hernandez and others in Criminal Case No. 15481

alleged:

I. That on or about March 15, 1945, and for some time before the said date andcontinuously thereafter, until the present time, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and the

place which they had chosen as the nervecenter of all their rebellious 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) defendants charged inCriminal Cases Nos. 19071, 14082, 14270, 14315 and 14344 of the Court of First

Instance of Manila (decided May 11, 1951) and also with others whose whereabouts and

identities are still unknown, the said accused and their other co-conspirators, being thenhigh ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Communist

Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.), which is now actively engaged in an armed rebellion

against the Government of the Philippines thru act theretofore committed and planned to

be further committed in Manila and other places in the Philippines, and of which party

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

5/74

the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan"(H.M.B.) otherwise or formerly known as the

"Hukbalahaps" (Huks), unlawfully and did then and there willfully, unlawfully and

feloniously help, support, promote, maintain, cause, direct and/or command the"Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) or the "Hukbalahaps" (Huks) to rise

publicly and take arms against the Republic of the Philippines, or otherwise participate in

such armed public uprising, for the purpose of removing the territory of the Philippinesfrom the allegiance to the government and laws thereof as in fact the said "HukbongMapagpalaya Ng Bayan" or "Hukbalahaps" have risen publicly and taken arms to attain

the said purpose by then and there making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks

against police, constabulary and army detachments as well as innocent civilians, and as anecessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in

furtherance thereof, have then and there committed acts of murder, pillage, looting,

plunder, arson, and planned destruction of private and public property to create and

spread chaos, disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate the accomplishment of theaforesaid purpose, as. follows, to wit: (Enumeration of thirteen attacks on government

forces or civilians by Huks on May 6, 1946, August 6, 1946, April 10, 1947, May 9,

1947, August 19, 1947, June, 1946, April 28, 1949, August 25, 1950, August 26, 1950,August 25, 1950, September 12, 1950, March 28, 1950 and March 29, 1950.)

II. That during the period of time and under the same circumstances herein-aboveindicated the said accused in the above-entitled case, conspiring among themselves and

with several others as aforesaid, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously organized,

established, led and/or maintained the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO), formerlyknown as the Committee on Labor Organizations (CLO), with central offices in Manila

and chapters and affiliated or associated labor unions and other "mass organizations" in

different places in the Philippines, as an active agency, organ, and instrumentality of the

Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.) and as such agency, organ, andinstrumentality, to fully cooperate in, and synchronize its activities as the CLO thus

organized, established, led and/or maintained by the herein accused and their co-

conspirators, has in fact fully cooperated in and synchronized its activities with the

activities of the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) and other organs, agencies,and instrumentalities of the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.), to thereby

assure, facilitate, and effect the complete and permanent success of the above-mentioned

armed rebellion against the Government of the Philippines.

The information filed against the defendants in Criminal Case No. 15479, Bayani EspirituAndres Baisa, Jr. and Teopista Valerio, alleges:

That on or about the 6th day of May, 1946, and for sometime prior and subsequent

thereto and continuously up to the present time, in the City of Manila, the seat of thegovernment of the Republic of the Philippines, which the herein accused have intended to

overthrow, and the place chosen for that purpose as the nerve center of all their rebellious

atrocities in the different parts of the country, the said accused being then highranking officials and/or members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.)

and/or of the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) otherwise or formerly known

as the "Hukbalahaps" (HUKS), the latter being the armed forces of said Communist Party

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

6/74

of the Philippines; having come to an agreement with the 29 of the 31 accused in

Criminal Cases Nos. 14071, 14082, 14270, 14315, 14344 of the Court of First Instance of

Manila and decided to commit the crime of rebellion, and therefore, conspiring andconfederating with all of the 29 accused in said criminal cases, acting in accordance with

their conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, together with many others whose

whereabouts and identities are still unknown up to the filing of this information, andhelping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously promotemaintain, cause, direct and/or command the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan", (HMB)

or the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) to rise publicly and take Arms against the Government or

otherwise participate therein for the purpose of overthrowing the same, as in fact, the said"Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" or Hukbalahap (HUKS) have risen publicly and

taken arms against the Government, by then and there making armed raids, sorties and

ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army detachment, and as a necessary

means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherancethereof, by then and there committing wanton acts of murder, spoilage, looting, arson,

kidnappings, planned destruction of private and public buildings, to create and spread

terrorism in order to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, as follows towit: (Enumeration of thirteen attacks on Government forces or civilians by Huks on May

6, 1946. August 6, 1946, April 10, 1947, May 9, 1947, August 19, 1947, June 1946, April

28, 1949, August 25, 1950, August 26, 1950, August 25, 1950, September 12, 1950,

March 28, 1950 and March 29, 1950).

A joint trial of both cases was held, after which the court rendered the decision subject of thepresent appeals.

APPEAL OF AMADO V. HERNANDEZ

After trial the Court of First Instance found, as against appellant Amado V. Hernandez, thefollowing: (1) that he is a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines and as such hadaliases, namely, Victor or Soliman; (2) that he was furnished copies of "Titis", a Communist

publication, as well as other publications of the Party; (3) that he held the position of President of

the Congress of Labor Organizations; (4) that he had close connections with the Secretariat ofthe Communist Party and held continuous communications with its leaders and its members; (5)

that he furnished a mimeographing machine used by the Communist Party, as well as clothes and

supplies for the military operations of the Huks; (6) that he had contacted well-known

Communists coming to the Philippines and had gone abroad to the WFTU conference Brussels,Belgium as a delegate of the CLO, etc. Evidence was also received by the court that Hernandez

made various speeches encouraging the people to join in the Huk movement in the provinces.

The court also found that there was a close tie-up between the Communist Party and the

Congress of Labor Organizations, of which Hernandez was the President, and that this Congress

was organized by Hernandez in conjunction with other Huks, namely: Alfredo Saulo, Mariano

Balgos, Guillermo Capadocia, etc.

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

7/74

We will now consider the nature and character of both the testimonial as well as the documentary

evidence, independently of each other, to find out if the said evidence supports the findings of

the court.

Testimonial Evidence

Amado V. Hernandez took the oath as member of the Communist Party in the month of October,

1947, at the offices of the Congress of Labor Organizations at 2070 Azcarraga in the presence of

Guillermo Capadocia, Ramon Espiritu, Pedro Castro, Andres Balsa, etc. As a Communist he wasgiven the pseudonyms of Victor and Soliman, and received copies of the Communist paper

"Titis". He made various speeches on the following dates and occasions:

(1) On August 29, 1948 before the Democratic Peace Rally of the CLO at Plaza Miranda,

in which he announced that the people will soon meet their dear comrade in the person of

Comrade Luis Taruc.

(2) On September 4, 1948 he conferred with Hindu Khomal Goufar at the Escolta, atwhich occasion Balgos told Goufar that the PKM, CLO and the Huks are in one effortthat the PKM are the peasants in the field and the Huks are the armed forces of the

Communist Party; and the CLO falls under the TUD of the Communist

Party. 1wph1.t

(3) On October 2, 1948 he went abroad to attend the Second Annual Convention of the

World Federation of Trade Unions and after arrival from abroad a dinner was given tohim by the people of Gagalangin, at which Hernandez delivered a speech and he said that

he preferred to go with the Huks because he felt safer with them than with the authorities

of the Government.

(4) In April, 1949, he made a speech before a group of tenants in Malabon attacking the

frauds in the 1947 elections, graft and corruption in the elections and that if improvementcannot be made by the ballots, they could be made by bullets; and enjoined the people to

go to the hills and join Luis Taruc the head of the dissidents in the Philippines.

(5) On October 2, 1949 he delivered a speech on the occasion of the commemoration of

the World Peace at the CLO headquarters at 330 P. Campa. He attacked the city mayor

and incited the people to go to Balintawak and see Bonifacio there and thereafter join

four comrades under the leadership of Luis Taruc.

(6) On October 16, 1949 he delivered a speech before a convention of the unemployed at330 P. Campa. He asked the unemployed to approve a resolution urging the Governmentto give them jobs. In conclusion he said that if the Government fails to give them jobs the

only way out was to join the revolutionary forces fighting in the hills. He further said that

Mao Tse Tung, leader of the People's Army in China, drove Chiang Kai Shek from hiscountry, and that Luis Taruc was also being chased by Government forces run by puppets

like Quirino, etc.

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

8/74

(7) On January 13, 1950 there was another meeting at 330 P. Campa. In his talk

Hernandez expressed regret that two foremost leaders of the CLO, Balgos and Capadocia,

had gone to the field to join the liberation army of the HMB, justifying their going outand becoming heroes by fighting in the fields against Government forces until the

ultimate goal is achieved.

The above evidence was testified to by Florentino Diolata who was the official photographer of

the CLO since August, 1948.

On the tie-up between the Communist Party and the CLO Guillermo Calayag, a Communist and

a Huk from 1942 to 1950, explained:

(1) The ultimate goal of the Communist Party is to overthrow the president government

by force of aims and violence; thru armed revolution and replace it with the so-called

dictatorship of the proletariat the Communist Party carries its program of armedoverthrow of the present government by organizing the HMB and other forms of

organization's such as the CLO, PKM, union organizations, and the professional andintellectual group; the CLO was organized by the Trade Union Division TUD of the

Communist Party.

(2) A good majority of the members of the Executive Committee and the CentralCommittee of the CLO were also top ranking officials of the Communist Party; activitiesundertaken by the TUD - the vital undertaking of the TUD is to see that the directives

coming from the organizational bureau of the Communist Party can be discussed within

the CLO especially the Executive Committee. And it is a fact that since a good majorityof the members of the Executive Committee are party members, there is no time, there is

no single time that those directives and decisions of the organizational department, thru

the TUD are being objected to by the Executive Committee of the CLO. These directivesrefer to how the CLO will conduct its functions. The executive committee is under thechairmanship of accused Amado V. Hernandez.

(3) The CLO played its role in the overall Communist program of armed overthrow of the

present government and its replacement by the dictatorship of the proletariat by means of

propaganda - by propagating the principles of Communism, by giving monetary aid,clothing, medicine and other forms of material help to the HMB. This role is manifested

in the very constitution of the CLO itself which expounded the theory of classless society

and the eradication of social classes (par. 5, Sec. 1, Art. 2, page 18 of the CLO

Constitution contained in the Fourth Annual Convention Souvenir Program of the CLOExh. "V-1579"). Thru propaganda, the CLO promoted the aims of Communist Party and

disseminated Communist ideas by:

(a) The conspicuous display of the portrait or, pictures of Crisanto Evangelista

(Exh. V-1662), founder of Communism in the Philippines, in the session hall of

the CLO headquarters at 2070 Azcarraga and then at 330 P. Campa;

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

9/74

(b) The distribution of foreign communist reading materials such as the World

Federation of Trade Union Magazine, International Union of Students magazine,

Voice magazine of the marine cooks of the CLO, World Committee of theDefenders of the Peace magazine, Free Bulgaria magazine, Soviet Russia Today

magazine and World Federation of Democratic Youth magazine (Exhs. V-911, V-

907, V-910, V-899, V-912, V-853, W-996 and V-967);

(c) The publication and distribution of some local subversive publications such as

the "Titis", "Bisig", Kidlat", which are Communist Party organs; "The PhilippineLabor Demands Justice" and "Hands Off Korea" authored by accused Amado V.

Hernandez;

(d) Principles of Communism were also propagated thru lectures, meetings, and

by means of organization of committees in the educational department as well as

researches in the Worker's Institute of the CLO.

(4) The CLO also helped carry out the program of the Communist Party thru infiltrationof party members and selected leaders of the HMB within the trade unions under the

control of the CLO. The Communist Party thru the CLO assigned Communist Partyleaders and organizers to different factories in order to organize unions. After the

organization of the union, it will affiliate itself with the CLO thru the Communist leaders

and the CLO in turn, will register said union with the Department of Labor; and theorientation and indoctrination of the workers is continued in the line of class struggle.

After this orientation and infiltration of the Communist Party members and selected

leaders of the HMB with the trade unions under the control of the CLO is already

achieved and the group made strong enough to carry out its aims, they will begin thesporadic strikes and the liquidation of anti-labor elements and anti-Communist elements

and will create a so-called revolutionary crisis. That revolutionary crisis will be done forthe party to give directives to the HMB who are fighting in the countrysides and madethem come to the city gates. The entry of the HMB is being paved by the simultaneous

and sporadic strikes, by ultimate general strikes thru the management of the CLO.

Important Documents Submitted at Trial

1. Documents which proved that Amado V. Hernandez used the aliases "Victor", or was

referred to as "Victor" or "Soliman".

(a) Letter dated April 23, 1950 (signed) by Victoraddressed to Julie telling the

latter of his sympathies for other communists, describing his experiences with

Communists abroad, telling Julie to dispose of materials that may be sent by

Victor. (Exh. D-2001-2004)

(b) "Paano Maisasagawa, etc." mentions different groups of labor unions of

which Victor heads one group, consisting of the MRRCO, PTLD, PGWU,EMWU and IRWU (Exh. C-2001-2008) Cadres assigned to different industries.

(Exh. V-40-41)

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

10/74

(c) Handwritten certificate of Honofre Mangila states that he knew Amado

Hernandez as Victor from co-party members Hugo and Ely. (Exh. LL)

(d) Letter of Elias to Ka Eto requesting the latter to deliver attached letter to

Victor. (Exh. 1103)

(e) Saulo's letter about his escape, asks Victor why his press statement was not

published in the newspapers. (Exh. C-362) Letter was however published by

Hernandez in the Daily Mirror.

(f) Letter of Taruc to Maclang directing the latter to give copy of Huk Story toVictor. (Exh. D-463-64)

(g) Notes of Salome Cruz, Huk courier, stating that she went to Soliman at

Pampanga St. to bring to the latter communications from the Communist Party.(Exh. D-1203) That Soliman was given copies of "Titis". (Exh. D-1209)

(h) SEC directions to Politburo members, Soliman not to be involved withNacionalista Rebels. (Exh. F-92-93. SEC)

(i) Letter of SEC to Politburo reporting that Saulo be sent out and Soliman has

"tendencies of careerism and tendency to want to deal with leaders of the party";

that he should be asked to choose to go underground or fight legally. (Exh. F-562)

(j) Explanation given by Hernandez why he did not join Saulo in goingunderground. (Exh. V-87) (1) His election as councilor until December, 1951.

(Exhs. V-42, W-9) (2) His election as President of CLO until August of following

year. (Exhs. V-42, W-9)

2. Letters and Messages of Hernandez.

(a) To Lyden Henry and Harry Reich, tells Huks still fighting. (Exh. V-80)

(b) To SOBSI Jakartathat Filipinos are joining other communist countries of

the East. (Exh. V-82)

(c) Press release on Saulo's disappearance published by Amado Hernandez. (Exh.W-116-120)

(d) To Hugh and Eddie, July 8, 1949 Extends greetings to National Union ofMarine Cooks and Stewards, states that labor has one common struggle "the

liberation of all the peoples from the chains of tyranny, fascism and imperialism".

(Exh. V-259)

(e) To Kas. Pablo and Estrada - talks of the fight - fight of labor. (Exh. V-85-89)

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

11/74

(f) Appeal to the Women and Asia. (Exh. V-5-10)

(g) Letter to Julie (Exh. V-2001-2004)

(h) Letter to Chan Lieu - states that leaders during the war are being persecuted,

like Taruc. Tells of reward of P100,000.00 on Taruc's head. (Exh. X-85-88)

(i) Letter to John Gates of the Daily Worker condemns Wall Street maneuvers;corruption and graft in Quirino administration, etc. (Exh. V-83)

(j) Cablegram: CLO join ILWU commends Harry Bridges, US Communist. (Exh.V-79)

(k) Communication of Hernandez to CLO at MRRCOPraises Balgos andCapadocia for joining the Huks. (Exhs. V-12-22, V-289)

(l) "Philippine labor Demands Justice"

Attacks czars of Wall Street and U.S.Army and Government. (Exh. V-94) .

(m) Letter to TarucJune 28, 1948.-States solidarity among the CLO Huks and

PKM. Attacks North Atlantic Pact. Praises Mao Tse Tung (contained in Exh. V-

94)

(n) "Philippines Is Not A Paradise"States of a delegation to Roxas attacking

unemployment. (Exh. V-90-93)

(o) Article "Progressive Philippines" (Exh. V-287)

(p) Article "Hands Off Korea"(Exhs. V-488-494, 495-501, 509-515, W-25-26)

(q) "Limang Buwang Balak Sa Pagpapalakas Ng Organisasyon". (Exh. X-35-38)

(r) Press statement of Hernandezopposes acceptance of decorations fromGreece by Romulo. (Exh. V-72)

3. Other Activities of Hernandez.

(a) Hernandez received clothes from Pres. Lines thru P. Campa, which clothes he

sent to the field. Letters show of sending of supplies to Huks. (Exh. S-383)

(b) Hernandez was asked to furnish portable typewriter, which he did furnish to

Huks. (Exh. C-364)

(c) Hernandez brought Taruc's letter about facts and incidents about Huks to

Bulosan for inclusion in Bulosan's book. (Exh. FF-1)

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

12/74

(d) Had conference with Kumar Goshal a Hindu, about the Huks and their armed

forces. (Photographs, Exhs. X-6 RR-54-55A)

(e) Supervised taking of pictures of sons of Capadocia and Joven. (Photographs,

Exhs. T-1, RR-136-138A)

(f) Had knowledge of the going underground of Capadocia and Balgos and issued

press release about their going underground. (Exh. F-91)

(g) Victor mentioned to continue as contact for Chino. (Exh. C-362)

(h) Taruc's letter to Maclang shows thatSolimanhad sent 7 lessons to Taruc.

(Exh. D-451-451-A)

(i) Associated with fellow ranking Communist leaders.

The Court upon consideration of the evidence submitted, found (1) that the Communist Partywas fully organized as a party and in order to carry out its aims and policies a established a

National Congress, a Central Committee (CC), Politburo PB, Secretariat (SEC), Organization

Bureau (OB), and National Courier or Communication Division (NCD), each body performingfunctions indicated in their respective names; (2) that in a meeting held on August 11, 1950 the

SEC discussed the creation of a Military Committee of the Party and a new GHQ, under which

on September 29, 1950 the SEC organized a special warfare division, with a technologicaldivision; (3) that on May 5, 1950 a body known as the National Intelligence Division was

created, to gather essential military intelligence and, in general, all information useful for the

conduct of the armed struggle (4) that a National Finance Committee was also organized as a

part of the Politburo and answerable to it; (5) that the country was divided into 10 Recos, the

10th Reco comprising the Manila and suburbs command; (6) that since November, 1949 the CPPhad declared the existence of a revolutionary situation and since then the Party had gone

underground and the CPP is leading the armed struggle for national liberation, and called on thepeople to organize guerrillas and coordinate with the HMB on the decisive struggle and final

overthrow of the imperialist government; (7) that in accordance with such plan the CPP prepared

plans for expansion and development not only of the Party but also of the HMB; the expansion

of the cadres from 3,600 in July 1950 to 56,000 in September 1951, the HMB from 10,800 inJuly 1950 to 172,000 in September 1951, et seq.

Around the month of January, 1950 it was decided by the CPP to intensify HMB militaryoperations for political purposes. The Politburo sanctioned the attacks made by the Huks on the

anniversary of the HMB on March 25, 1950. The HMB attacks that were reported to the PB were

those made in May, 1946; June, 1946; April 10, 1947; May 9, 1947; August 19, 1947; August

25, 1950; August 26, 1950; October 15 and 17, 1950; May 6, 1946; August 6, 1946; April 10,1947; May 9, 1947; August 19, 1947; April 29, 1949; August 25, 1950; August 26, 1950;

September 12, 1950; March 26, 1950; March 29, 1950.

The theory of the prosecution, as stated in the lower court's decision, is as follows:

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

13/74

The evidence does not show that the defendants in these cases now before this Court had

taken a direct part in those raids and in the commission of the crimes that had been

committed. It is not, however, the theory of the prosecution that they in fact had directparticipation in the commission of the same but rather that the defendants in these cases

have cooperated, conspired and confederated with the Communist Party in the

prosecution and successful accomplishment of the aims and purposes of the said Partythru the organization called the CLO (Congress of Labor Organizations).

The Court found that the CLO is independent and separate from the CPP, organized under thesame pattern as the CPP, having its own National Congress, a Central Committee (which acts in

the absence of and in representation of the National Congress), an Executive Committee (which

acts when the National Congress and the Executive Committee are not in session), and seven

permanent Committees, namely, of Organization, Unemployment and Public Relations, DifferentStrikes and Pickets, Finance, Auditing, Legislation and Political Action. Members of the

Communist Party dominate the committees of the CLO. The supposed tie-up between CPP and

the CLO of which Hernandez was the President, is described by the court below in finding, thus:

Just how the CLO coordinates its functions with the Communist Party organ under which it

operates was explained by witness Guillermo S. Calayag, one-time ranking member of theCommunist Party and the CLO who typewrites the "Patnubay sa Education" from a handwritten

draft of Capadocia, which is one of the texts used in the Worker's institute of the CLO.

According to him, the CLO plays its role by means of propaganda, giving monetary aid,

clothing, medicine and other material forms of help to the HMB, which constitutes the armedforces of the Communist Party. Propaganda is done by lectures, meetings, and the organization

of committees of the educational department as well as researches at the CLO Worker's Institute.

Another way of helping the Communist Party of the Philippines is by allowing the

Communist Party leaders to act as organizers in the different factories in forming a union.These Party Members help workers in the factories to agitate for the eradication of socialclasses and ultimately effect the total emancipation of the working classes thru the

establishment of the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat. It is the duty of these

Communist Party members to indoctrinate uninitiated workers in the union to becomeproselytes of the Communist Party ideology. After the right number is secured and a

union is formed under a communist leader, this union is affiliated with the CLO and this

in turn registers the same with the Department of Labor. The orientation and

indoctrination of the masses is continued with the help of the CLO. The primaryobjective of the CLO is to create what is called a revolutionary crisis. It seeks to attain

this objective by first making demands from the employers for concessions which

become more and more unreasonable until the employers would find it difficult to grant

the same. Then a strike is declared. But the strikes are only preparation for the ultimateattainment of the Communist goal of armed overthrow of the government. After the

workers in the factories have already struck in general at the behest of the Communist

Party thru the CLO a critical point is reached when a signal is given for the armed forcesof the Communist Party, the HMB, to intervene and carry the revolution now being

conducted outside to within the city.

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

14/74

On the basis of the above findings, the court below found Hernandez guilty as principal of the

crime charged against him and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetuawith the

accessories provided by law, and to pay the proportionate amount of the costs.

Our study of the testimonial and documentary evidence, especially those cited by the Court in its

decision and by the Solicitor General in his brief, discloses that defendant-appellant Amado V.Hernandez, as a Communist, was an active advocate of the principles of Communism, frequently

exhorting his hearers to follow the footsteps of Taruc and join the uprising of the laboring classes

against capitalism and more specifically against America and the Quirino administration, whichhe dubbed as a regime of puppets of American imperialism. But beyond the open advocacy of

Communistic Theory there appears no evidence that he actually participated in the actual

conspiracy to overthrow by force the constituted authority.

Hernandez is the founder and head of the CLO. As such, what was his relation to the rebellion?

If, as testified to by Guillermo S. Calayag, the CLO plays merely the role of propagation by

lectures, meetings and organization of committees of education by Communists; if, as stated, the

CLO merely allowed Communist Party leaders to act as organizers in the different factories, toindoctrinate the CLO members into the Communist Party and proselytize them to the Communist

ideology; if, as also indicated by Calayag, the CLO purports to attain the ultimate overthrow ofthe Government first by making demands from employers for concessions until the employers

find it difficult to grant the same, at which time a strike is declared; if it is only after the various

strikes have been carried out and a crisis is thereby developed amongthe laboring class, that the

Communist forces would intervene and carry the revolution it is apparent that the CLO wasmerely a stepping stone in the preparation of the laborers for the Communist' ultimate revolution.

In other words, the CLO had no function but that of indoctrination and preparation of the

members for the uprising that would come. It was only a preparatory organization prior torevolution, not the revolution itself. The leader of the CLO therefore, namely Hernandez, cannot

be considered as a leader in actual rebellion or of the actual uprising subject of the accusation.

Hernandez, as President of the CLO therefore, by his presidency and leadership of the CLO

cannot be considered as having actually risen up in arms in rebellion against the Government ofthe Philippines, or taken part in the conspiracy to commit the rebellion as charged against him in

the present case; he was merely a propagandist and indoctrinator of Communism, he was not a

Communist conspiring to commit the actual rebellion by the mere fact of his presidency of theCLO.

The court below declares that since November 1949 the Communist Party of the Philippines haddeclared the existence of the revolutionary situation and since then the Party had gone

underground, with the CPP leading the struggle for national integration and that in the month of

January 1950, it was decided by the said Party to intensify the HMB military operations for

political purposes. The court implicates the appellant Hernandez as a co-conspirator in thisresolution or acts of the Communist Party by his mere membership thereto. We find this

conclusion unwarranted. The seditious speeches of Hernandez took place before November,

1949 when the CPP went underground. The court below has not been able to point out, nor haveWe been able to find among all acts attributed to Hernandez, any single fact or act of his from

which it may be inferred that he took part in the deliberations declaring the existence of a

revolutionary situation, or that he had gone underground. As a matter of fact the prosecution's

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

15/74

evidence is to the effect that Hernandez refused to go underground preferring to engage in what

they consider the legal battle for the cause.

We have also looked into the different documents which have been presented at the time of the

trial and which were confiscated from the office of the Politburo of the Communist Party. The

speeches of Hernandez were delivered before the declaration by the Communist Party of a stateof revolutionary situation in 1949. Neither was it shown that Hernandez was a member of the

Executive Committee, or of the SEC, or of the Politburo of the Communist Party; so NO

presumption can arise that he had taken part in the accord or conspiracy declaring a revolution.In short, there has been no evidence, direct or indirect, to relate or connect the appellant

Hernandez with the uprising or the resolution to continue or maintain said uprising, his

participation in the deliberations leading to the uprising being inferred only from the fact that he

was a communist.

The practice among the top Communists, as declared by the trial court appears to have been for

important members, if they intend actually to join the rebellion, to go underground, which meant

leaving the city, disappearing from sight and/or secretly joining the forces in the field.

The document, Exhibit F-562, which is quoted in the decision, contains the directive of the SECof September 1, 1950, to Saulo and Hernandez, which reads:

11. In view of the new developments in the city, send out Elias who prefers to workoutside. Present problem of fighting legally to Com. Soliman. If Soliman is prepared for

martyrdom, retain him to fight legally. If not, send him out with Elias. Same goes with

Com. Mino and other relatively exposed mass leaders.

And the lower court itself found that whereas Saulo went underground and joined the

underground forces outside the City, Hernandez remained in the City, engaged in the work ofpropaganda, making speeches and causing the publication of such matters as the Communist

Party leaders directed him to publish.

That Hernandez refused to go underground is a fact which is further corroborated by the

following reasons (excuses) given by him for not going underground, namely (1) that his term of

councilor of the City of Manila was to extend to December, 1951; and (2) that he was electedPresident of the CLO for a term which was to end the year 1951.

As a matter of fact the SEC gave instructions to Hernandez not to be involved with NacionalistaRebels, and reported to the Politburo that Hernandez "has tendencies of careerism, and tending to

want to deal with leaders of the Nacionalista Party instead of following CPP organizational

procedures."

The court below further found that Hernandez had been furnishing supplies for the Huks in the

field. But the very document dated December 3, 1949, Exhibit D-420422, cited in the decision(printed, p. 49), is to the effect that clothes and shoes that Hernandez was supposed to have sent

have not been received. It is true that some clothes had been sent thru him to the field, but these

clothes had come from a crew member of a ship of the American President Lines. He also, upon

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

16/74

request, sent a portable typewriter to the SEC or Politburo. Furthermore, a certain Niagara

Duplicating machine received by Hernandez from one Rolland Scott Bullard a crew member of

the SS President Cleveland, appease later to have been forwarded by him to the officers of theSEC or the Politburo.

Lastly, it further appears that Taruc and other CPP leaders used to send notes to appellantHernandez, who in turn issued press releases for which he found space in the local papers. His

acts in this respect belong to the category of propaganda, to which he appears to have limited his

actions as a Communist.

The acts of the appellant as thus explained and analyzed fall under the category of acts of

propaganda, but do not prove that he actually and in fact conspired with the leaders of theCommunist Party in the uprising or in the actual rebellion, for which acts he is charged in the

information. And his refusal to go underground because of his political commitments occasioned

by his term of election as president of the CLO and the impressions caused by his acts on the

Communist leaders, to the effect that he was in direct communication or understanding with the

Nacionalista Party to which he was affiliated, creates in Us the reasonable doubt that it was nothis Communistic leanings but his political ambitions, that motivated his speeches sympathizing

with the Huks. For which reason We hold that the evidence submitted fails to prove beyondreasonable doubt that he has conspired in the instigation of the rebellion for which he is held to

account in this criminal case.

The question that next comes up for resolution is: Does his or anyone's membership in the

Communist Partyper se render Hernandez or any Communist guilty of conspiracy to commit

rebellion under the provisions of Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code? The pertinent provision

reads:

ART. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection.

Theconspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished,respectively, byprision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not

exceed 5,000 pesos, and byprision correccional in its medium period and a fine not

exceeding 2,000 pesos.

The advocacy of Communism or Communistic theory and principle is not to be considered as acriminal act of conspiracy unless transformed or converted into an advocacy of action. In the

very nature of things, mere advocacy of a theory or principle is insufficient unless the communist

advocates action, immediate and positive, the actual agreement to start an uprising or rebellion or

an agreement forged to use force and violence in an uprising of the working class to overthrowconstituted authority and seize the reins of Government itself. Unless action is actually advocated

or intended or contemplated, the Communist is a mere theorist, merely holding belief in the

supremacy of the proletariat a Communist does not yet advocate the seizing of the reins of

Government by it. As a theorist the Communist is not yet actually considered as engaging in thecriminal field subject to punishment. Only when the Communist advocates action and actual

uprising, war or otherwise, does he become guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion. Borrowing

the language of the Supreme Court of the United States:

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

17/74

In our jurisprudence guilt is personal, and when the imposition of punishment on a status

or on conduct can only be justified by reference to the relationship of that status or

conduct to other concededly criminal activity (here advocacy of violent overthrow), thatrelationship must be sufficiently substantial to satisfy the concept of personal guilt in

order to withstand attack under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Membership, without more, in an organization engaged in illegal advocacy, it is nowsaid, has not heretofore been recognized by this Court to be such a relationship. ... .

What must be met, then, is the argument that membership, even when accompanied bythe elements of knowledge and specific intent, affords an insufficient quantum of

participation in the organization's alleged criminal activity, that is, an insufficiently

significant form of aid and encouragement to permit the imposition of criminal sanctions

on that basis. It must indeed be recognized that a person who merely becomes a memberof an illegal organization, by that "act" alone need be doing nothing more than signifying

his assent to its purposes and activities on one hand, and providing, on the other, only the

sort of moral encouragement which comes from the knowledge that others believe in

what the organization is doing. It may indeed be argued that such assent andencouragement do fall short of the concrete, practical impetus given to a criminal

enterprise which is lent for instance by a commitment on the part of the conspirator to actin furtherance of that enterprise. A member, as distinguished from a conspirator, mayindicate his approval of a criminal enterprise by the very fact of his membership without

thereby necessarily committing himself to further it by any act or course of conduct

whatever. (Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203, 6 L. ed. 782)

The most important activity of appellant Hernandez appears to be the propagation of

improvement of conditions of labor through his organization, the CLO. While the CLO of whichhe is the founder and active president, has communistic tendencies, its activity refers to the

strengthening of the unity and cooperation between labor elements and preparing them for

struggle; they are not yet indoctrinated in the need of an actual war with or against Capitalism.

The appellant was a politician and a labor leader and it is not unreasonable to suspect that hislabor activities especially in connection with the CLO and other trade unions, were impelled and

fostered by the desire to secure the labor vote to support his political ambitions. It is doubtful

whether his desire to foster the labor union of which he was the head was impelled by an actualdesire to advance the cause of Communism, not merely to advance his political aspirations.

Insofar as the appellant's alleged activities as a Communist are concerned, We have not found,nor has any particular act on his part been pointed to Us, which would indicate that he had

advocated action or the use of force in securing the ends of Communism. True it is, he had

friends among the leaders of the Communist Party, and especially the heads of the rebellion, but

this notwithstanding, evidence is wanting to show that he ever attended their meetings, orcollaborated and conspired with said leaders in planning and encouraging the acts of rebellion, or

advancing the cause thereof. Insofar as the furnishing of the mimeograph machine and clothes is

concerned, it appears that he acted merely as an intermediary, who passed said machine andclothes on to others. It does not appear that he himself furnished funds or material help of his

own to the members of the rebellion or to the forces of the rebellion in the field.

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

18/74

But the very act or conduct of his in refusing to go underground, in spite of the apparent desire of

the chief of the rebellion, is clear proof of his non-participation in the conspiracy to engage in or

to foster the rebellion or the uprising.

We next consider the question as to whether the fact that Hernandez delivered speeches of

propaganda in favor of Communism and in favor of rebellion can be considered as a criminal actof conspiracy to commit rebellion as defined in the law. In this respect, the mere fact of his

giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism would not make him guilty of conspiracy,

because there was no evidence that the hearers of his speeches of propaganda then and thereagreed to rise up in arms for the purpose of obtaining the overthrow of the democratic

government as envisaged by the principles of Communism. To this effect is the following

comment of Viada:

CUESTION 10. El que hace propaganda entre sus convecinos, induciendoles a que el dia

que se anunciara la subasta de consumes se echaran a la calle para conseguir aunque

fuera preciso acudir a la fuerza el reparto entre los vecinos ricos solamente, sera

responsable de un delito de conspiracion para la sedicion?

El Tribunal Supreme haresuelto la negative al casar cierta sentencia de la Audiencia de Valencia, que entendio lo

contrario: "Considerando que, con areglo a lo que dispone el art. 4. del Codigo Penal, hayconspiracion cuando dos o mas personas se conciertan para la execution de un delito y

resuelven cmeterlo; y no constando que existiera ese concierto en cuanto a los hechos que

se refieren en la tercera pregunta del veredicto, pues en ella solo se habla de los actos de

induccion que el procesado realizo, sin expresar el efecto que la mismo produjo en elanimo de las personas a quienes se dirigian, ni si estas aceptaron o no lo que se las

propuso, resulta evidence que faltan los clementos integrantes de la conspiracion, etc."

(Se. de 5 de Julio de 1907, Gaceta de 7 de Enero de 1909.) (Viada, Tomo I, CodigoPenal, p. 152)

In view of all the above circumstances We find that there is no concrete evidence provingbeyond reasonable doubt that the appellant (Hernandez) actually participated in the rebellion or

in any act of conspiracy to commit or foster the cause of the rebellion. We are constrained, in

view of these circumstances, to absolve, as We hereby absolve, the appellant Amado V.Hernandez from the crime charged, with a proportionate share of the costs de oficio.

APPEAL OF OTHER DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

All the other defendants were found guilty as accomplices in the crime of rebellion as charged in

the information and were each sentenced to suffer the penalty of 10 years and 1 day ofprision

mayor, with the accessories provided by law, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs.

Legal Considerations.Before proceeding to consider the appeals of the other defendants, it isbelieved useful if not necessary to lay dawn the circumstances or facts that may be determinative

of their criminal responsibility or the existence or nature thereof. To begin with, as We have

exhaustively discussed in relation to the appeal of Hernandez, we do not believe that meremembership in the Communist Party or in the CLO renders the member liable, either of rebellion

or of conspiracy to commit rebellion, because mere membership and nothing more merely

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

19/74

implies advocacy of abstract theory or principle without any action being induced thereby; and

that such advocacy becomes criminal only if it is coupled with action or advocacy of action,

namely, actual rebellion or conspiracy to commit rebellion, or acts conducive thereto or evincingthe same.

On the other hand, membership in the HMB (Hukbalahap) implies participation in an actualuprising or rebellion to secure, as the Huks pretend, the liberation of the peasants and laboring

class from thraldom. By membership in the HMB, one already advocates uprising and the use of

force, and by such membership he agrees or conspires that force be used to secure the ends of theparty. Such membership, therefore, even if there is nothing more, renders the member guilty of

conspiracy to commit rebellion punishable by law.

And when a Huk member, not content with his membership, does anything to promote the ends

of the rebellion like soliciting contributions, or acting as courier, he thereby becomes guilty of

conspiracy, unless he takes to the field and joins in the rebellion or uprising, in which latter case

he commits rebellion.

In U.S. v. Vergara, infra, the defendants organized a secret society commonly known as the

"Katipunan", the purpose of which was to overthrow the government by force. Each of thedefendants on various times solicited funds from the people of Mexico, Pampanga. The Court

held that the defendants were guilty of conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or

insurrection and not of rebellion or insurrection itself. Thus, the Court ruled that:

From the evidence adduced in this case we are of the opinion that the said defendants are

guilty, not of inciting, setting or foot, or assisting or engaging in rebellion, but rather ofthe crime of conspiring to overthrow, put down, and destroy by force the Government of

the United States in the Philippine Islands, and therefore we find that said defendants, and

each of them, did, together with others, in the months of February and March, 1903, inthe Province of Pampanga, Philippine Islands, conspire to overthrow, put down, and todestroy by force the Government of the United States in the Philippine Islands. (U.S. v.

Vergara, et al., 3 Phil. 432, 434.)

JUAN J. CRUZ

The court found him to be a Communist with various aliases, a member of the Central

Committee of the CLO member of the Central Committee of the CPP and as such committed to

the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat To the same effect is the testimony ofGuillermo Calayag.

There is no evidence to connect him with the rebellion or to the conspiracy to commit rebellion.

He should therefore be absolved of the charges contained in the information.

AMADO RACANDAY

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

20/74

The trial court found him guilty as a Communist, a Secretary and Executive Committee member

of the CLO a communications center of the Communist Party, having been found in possession

of letters from Federico Maclang to Salome Cruz, and solicitor of contributions for the Huks.

Racanday admits being a member of the Executive Committee of the CLO Editor of the Kidlat of

the Government Workers Union, receiving copies of the Titis. Calayag testified that he was amember of the Central Committee of the Communist Party entrusted with the duty of receiving

directives of the Regional Committee of the Communist Party.

The letters found in his possession are dated February 14, 1950, before the Communist Party

went underground. We have been unable to find the evidence upon which the court bases its

conclusion that he received contributions for the Huks. With these circumstances in mind, Weare not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that as a Communist he took part in the conspiracy

among the officials of the Communist Party to take part and support the rebellion of the Huks.

We are, therefore, constrained to absolve him of the charges filed against him.

GENARO DE LA CRUZ

The court found him to be a Communist since 1945, an officer of an organized Communist

branch in Pasay City, a member of the Central Committee and Treasurer of the CLO. Headmitted his membership and his position as member of the executive committee and treasurer of

the CLO these facts being corroborated by the witness Guillermo Calayag.

His membership in the Communist Party dates as far back as the year 1945. As a communist,

Genaro de la Cruz received quotas and monetary contributions coming from the areas under his

jurisdiction, and one time he made a receipt from a member from Caloocan at the CLO

headquarters at Azcarraga signing the receipt as "Gonzalo" which is one of his aliases. He alsodistributed copies of the "Titis" magazine. `

While his membership in the Communist Party plus his having received contributions for the

party indicate that he is an active member, it was not shown that the contributions that he

received from Communist Party members were received around the year 1950 when the CentralCommittee of the Communist Party had already agreed to conspire and go underground and

support the Huk rebellion. Under these circumstances We cannot find him guilty of conspiracy to

commit rebellion because of the lack of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JULIAN LUMANOG

The court found him to be an organizer of HMB among the mill workers, solicited contributions

for the HMB and Central Committee member of the CLO as per Testimony of Guillermo

Calayag.

He admitted that he joined the Communist Party because he was made to believe that the Party is

for the welfare of the laborers. He also admitted being a member of the Central Committee of the

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

21/74

CLO Calayag testified that Lumanog organized the HMB units of the Communist Party in the

Lumber Unions and attended a Communist meeting held by Maclang.

Domingo Clarin testified that he (Julian Lumanog) used to give the money collected by him to

one Nicasio Pamintuan, one of the members of the HMB Special Unit Trigger Squad) in Manila

for the use of the said unit.

Considering that the HMB was engaged in a rebellion to overthrow the government, it is evident

that by giving his contributions he actually participated in the conspiracy to overthrow thegovernment and should, therefore, be held liable for such conspiracy, and should be sentenced

accordingly.

FERMIN RODILLAS

The trial court found that Fermin Rodillas was a member of the CPP and the CLO that hisactivities consisted in soliciting contributions, in cash and in kind, from city residents for the use

of the HMB, turning over said collections to the Party; that he has given asylum to a wantedHukbalahap at his house at Juan Luna St., Gagalangin, which house was used as Military post.The above findings of the court are fully supported by the testimony of Domingo Clarin.

Considering that while he has not actually taken part in the rebellion, he has shown sympathywith the cause by soliciting contributions for it and had given shelter to the Huks. We feel that

the court was fully justified in finding him guilty, but We hold that he should be declared liable

merely as a co-conspirator in the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion, and should besentenced accordingly.

BAYANI ESPIRITU

This appellant was found by the court to be a Communist, he having admitted membership in the

Communist Party since 1945; that his duties as a Communist was to help in the office of theNational Finance Committee, assorting papers and written documents; that sometimes he

accompanied the purchaser of medicines, shoes, papers, foodstuffs and clothing to be given to

the Huks; that he is a member of the Communication Division of the CPP in Manila, in charge ofdistribution of letters or communications; that he admits having written to Salome Cruz, courier

of the Communist Party, when he asked for his necessities, such as money and shoes, etc.

The facts found by the court are sufficiently supported by the communications and evidence

submitted by the prosecution. The exhibits show that he was in constant communication with the

communists; serving them as courier. His oath as a member of the Communist Party wassubmitted in court and in it he admits obedience to all orders of the Party and to propagate thestability of the PKP.

Considering that the PKP was engaged in an actual uprising against the constituted Government

and that Bayani Espiritu was in constant communication with the Communist Party and served it

as courier, We believe that the court was fully justified in finding him guilty. However, We

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

22/74

believe that not having actually taken up arms in the uprising he may only be declared guilty of

conspiracy to commit rebellion.

TEOPISTA VALERIO

The court below found that this appellant joined the Communists in 1938 in San Luis,Pampanga, under Casto Alejandrino, who later became her common-law husband; that her

aliases are "Estrella" and "Star"; that she was found in possession of various documents written

to top Communists like Alejandrino, Lava and Romy, as well as a letter from Taruccongratulating her for the delivers, of a son.

Jose Taguiang testified that she was a member of the Provincial Committee of the CPP in Nueva

Ecija, later Chairman of the Finance Department, and then promoted to Finance Officer of the

Central Luzon Committee. Alicia Vergara, a Huk courier, testified that she delivered letter from

the mountains to Teopista Valerie, who was in turn also a courier.

Without considering the close relationship that she had with top Communist Casto Alejandrino,We are satisfied that she herself was, aside from being a Huk courier, also a Huk, a member ofthe HMB from 1942 to 1951. As she was a Communist and at the same time a member of the

HMB, and considering that the HMB was engaged in an uprising to uproot the legitimate

government, there cannot be any question that she was in conspiracy with the other members ofher Party against the constituted government. We hold, therefore, that the evidence provesbeyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion.

DEFENDANTS NOT INCLUDED IN DECISION

In Crim. Case No. 15841 (G.R. No. L-6025) the charge against Guillermo Capadocia, Mariano

P. Balgos, Alfredo B. Saulo and Jacobo Espino was dismissed because they have not beenapprehended at the time of the trial.

PEOPLE VS. EVANGELISTA, 57 PHIL. 354 AND

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1700, DISTINGUISHED

In the case at bar the prosecution is for actual rebellion which consists in rising publicly and

taking aims against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said

Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippines, or any part thereof, etc., a crime definedin Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code; whereas Evangelista was charged and convicted for

inciting to rebellion under Art. 138, Revised Penal Code (formerly Sec. 2, Act No. 292). As the

specific charge against appellants is that of rising up in arms in actual rebellion against theGovernment, they cannot be held guilty of inciting the people to arms under Article 138, whichis a different offense.

On the other hand, Rep. Act 1700, known as the Anti-subversion Act, which penalizes

membership in any organization or association committed to subvert the Government, cannot be

applied to the appellants because said Act was approved on June 20, 1957 and was not in force at

the time of the commission of the acts charged against appellants (committed 1945-1950) ; the

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

23/74

Anti-Subversion Act punishes participation or membership in an organization committed to

overthrow the duly constituted Government, a crime district from that of actual rebellion with

which appellants are charged.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 15841 (G.R. No. L-6025) defendants-appellants Amado V.

Hernandez, Juan J. Cruz, Amado Racanday and Genaro de la Cruz are absolved from the charges

contained in the information, with their proportionate share of the costs de oficio. Thedefendants-appellants Julian Lumanog and Fermin Rodillas in Criminal Case No. 15841 (G.R.

No. L-6025) and the defendants-appellants Bayani Espiritu and Teopista Valerio in Criminal

Case No. 15479 (G.R. No. L-6026) are hereby found guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commitrebellion, as defined and punished in Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code, and each and

everyone of them is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years, four months and

twenty-one days ofprision correccional, and to pay a fine of P5,000.00, with subsidiary

imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay their proportional share of the costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ.,

concur.Padilla, Barrera and Regala, JJ., took no part.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 92163 June 5, 1990

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS. JUAN PONCE

ENRILE,petitioner

vs.

JUDGE JAIME SALAZAR (Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City

[Br. 103], SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR AURELIO TRAMPE, PROSECUTOR

FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS, AND CITY ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR EULOGIO

MANANQUIL, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DIRECTOR ALFREDOLIM, BRIG. GEN. EDGAR DULA TORRES (Superintendent of the Northern Police

District) AND/ OR ANY AND ALL PERSONS WHO MAY HAVE ACTUAL CUSTODY

OVER THE PERSON OF JUAN PONCE ENRILE, respondents.

G.R. No. 92164 June 5, 1990

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

24/74

SPS. REBECCO E. PANLILIO AND ERLINDA E. PANLILIO,petitioners,

vs.

PROSECUTORS FERNANDO DE LEON, AURELIO C. TRAMPE, FFRDINAND R.

ABESAMIS, AND EULOGIO C. MANANQUIL, and HON. JAIME W. SALAZAR, JR., in

his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch

103, respondents.

NARVASA, J.:

Thirty-four years after it wrote history into our criminal jurisprudence,People vs.Hernandez

1once more takes center stage as the focus of a confrontation at law that would re-

examine, if not the validity of its doctrine, the limits of its applicability. To be sure, the

intervening period saw a number of similar cases2that took issue with the ruling-all with a

marked lack of success-but none, it would Beem, where season and circumstance had more

effectively conspired to attract wide public attention and excite impassioned debate, even amonglaymen; none, certainly, which has seen quite the kind and range of arguments that are now

brought to bear on the same question.

The facts are not in dispute. In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate Minority FloorLeader Juan PonceEnrile was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Limof the National Bureau of Investigationon the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar

of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 9010941. The

warrant had issued on an information signed and earlier that day filed by a panel of prosecutorscomposed of Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, State Prosecutor Ferdinand R.

Abesamis and Assistant City Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., charging Senator Enrile, the

spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion withmurder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period of the failed coupattempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. Senator Enrile was taken to and held

overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none having been

recommended in the information and none fixed in the arrest warrant. The following morning,February 28, 1990, he was brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon City where he was given

over to the custody of the Superintendent of the Northern Police District, Brig. Gen. Edgardo

Dula Torres.3

On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition

for habeas corpusherein (which was followed by a supplemental petition filed on March 2,1990), alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights in being, or having been:

(a) held to answer for criminal offense which does not exist in the statute books;

(b) charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no complaint was

initially filed or preliminary investigation was conducted, hence was denied dueprocess;

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

25/74

(c) denied his right to bail; and

(d) arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the judgewho issued it first having personally determined the existence of probable cause.

4

The Court issued the writ prayed for, returnable March 5, 1990 and set the plea for hearing onMarch 6, 1990.5On March 5, 1990, the Solicitor General filed a consolidated return

6for the

respondents in this case and in G.R. No. 921647Which had been contemporaneously but

separately filed by two of Senator Enrile's co-accused, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio,and raised similar questions. Said return urged that the petitioners' case does not fall within

theHernandezruling because-and this is putting it very simply-the information

inHernandezcharged murders and other common crimes committed as a necessary means forthe commission of rebellion, whereas the information against Sen. Enrile et al.charged murder

and frustrated murder committed on the occasion, but not in furtherance, of rebellion.Stated

otherwise, the Solicitor General would distinguish between the complex crime ("delito

complejo") arising from an offense being a necessary means for committing another, which

is referred to in the second clause of Article 48, Revised Penal Code, and is the subject oftheHernandez ruling, and the compound crime ("delito compuesto") arising from a single act

constituting two or more grave or less grave offenses referred to in the first clause of the sameparagraph, with whichHernandezwas not concerned and to which, therefore, it should not

apply.

The parties were heard in oral argument, as scheduled, on March 6, 1990, after which the Court

issued its Resolution of the same date8granting Senator Enrile and the Panlilio spouses

provisional liberty conditioned upon their filing, within 24 hours from notice, cash or surety

bonds of P100,000.00 (for Senator Enrile) and P200,000.00 (for the Panlilios), respectively. TheResolution stated that it was issued without prejudice to a more extended resolution on the matter

of the provisional liberty of the petitioners and stressed that it was not passing upon the legalissues raised in both cases. Four Members of the Court9voted against granting bail to Senator

Enrile, and two10

against granting bail to the Panlilios.

The Court now addresses those issues insofar as they are raised and litigated in Senator Enrile'spetition, G.R. No. 92163.

The parties' oral and written pleas presented the Court with the following options:

(a) abandonHernandezand adopt the minority view expressed in the main dissentof Justice Montemayor in said case that rebellion cannot absorb more serious

crimes, and that under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code rebellion may

properly be complexed with common offenses, so-called; this option was

suggested by the Solicitor General in oral argument although it is not offered inhis written pleadings;

(b) holdHernandezapplicable only to offenses committed in furtherance, or as anecessary means for the commission, of rebellion, but not to acts committed in the

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

26/74

course of a rebellion which also constitute "common" crimes of grave or less

grave character;

(c) maintainHernandez as applying to make rebellion absorb all other offenses

committed in its course, whether or not necessary to its commission or in

furtherance thereof.

On the first option, eleven (11) Members of the Court voted against abandoning Hernandez. Two

(2) Members felt that the doctrine should be re-examined.10

-AIn the view of the majority, theruling remains good law, its substantive and logical bases have withstood all subsequent

challenges and no new ones are presented here persuasive enough to warrant a complete reversal.

This view is reinforced by the fact that not too long ago, the incumbent President, exercising herpowers under the 1986 Freedom Constitution, saw fit to repeal, among others, Presidential

Decree No. 942 of the former regime which precisely sought to nullify or

neutralizeHernandezby enacting a new provision (Art. 142-A) into the Revised Penal Code to

the effect that "(w)hen by reason, or on the occasion, of any of the crimes penalized in this

Chapter (Chapter I of Title 3, which includes rebellion), acts which constitute offenses uponwhich graver penalties are imposed by law are committed, the penalty for the most serious

offense in its maximum period shall be imposed upon the offender."'11

In thus acting, thePresident in effect by legislative flat reinstatedHernandez as binding doctrine with the effect of

law. The Court can do no less than accord it the same recognition, absent any sufficiently

powerful reason against so doing.

On the second option, the Court unanimously voted to reject the theory thatHernandezis, or

should be, limited in its application to offenses committed as a necessary means for the

commission of rebellion and that the ruling should not be interpreted as prohibiting thecomplexing of rebellion with other common crimes committed on the occasion, but not in

furtherance, thereof. While four Members of the Court felt that the proponents' arguments werenot entirely devoid of merit, the consensus was that they were not sufficient to overcome whatappears to be the real thrust ofHernandezto rule out the complexing of rebellion with any other

offense committed in its course under either of the aforecited clauses of Article 48, as is made

clear by the following excerpt from the majority opinion in that case:

There is one other reason-and a fundamental one at that-why Article 48 of our

Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexedwith rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this

could be done), the following penalties would be imposable upon the movant,

namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 andprision

mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon the modifying circumstancespresent, but never exceeding 12 years ofprision mayor, and (2) for the crime of

murder, reclusion temporalin its maximum period to death, depending upon the

modifying circumstances present. in other words, in the absence of aggravating

circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be imposedupon him. However,under Article 48 saidpenalty would have to be meted outto him, even in the

absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

27/74

in conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would beunfavorableto the

movant.

Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was enacted for the purpose offavoring the

culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty more severethan that which would be

proper if the several acts performed by him were punished separately. In thewords of Rodriguez Navarro:

La unificacion de penas en los casos de concurso de delitos a quehace referencia este articulo (75 del Codigo de 1932), esta basado

francamente en el principio pro reo.' (II Doctrina Penal del

Tribunal Supremo de Espana, p. 2168.)

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 andthen in 1932, reading:

Las disposiciones del articulo anterior no son aplicables en el casode que un solo hecho constituya dos o mas delitos, o cuando el uno

de ellos sea medio necesario para cometer el otro.

En estos casos solo se impondra la pena correspondiente al delito

mas grave en su grado maximo, hasta el limite que represents la

suma de las que pudieran imponerse, penando separadamente losdelitos.

Cuando la pena asi computada exceda de este limite, se

sancionaran los delitos por separado. (Rodriguez Navarro,Doctrina Penal del Tribunal Supremo, Vol. II, p. 2163)

and that our Article 48 does not contain the qualification inserted in said

amendment, restricting the imposition of the penalty for the graver offense in its

maximum period to the case when it does not exceed the sum total of the penaltiesimposable if the acts charged were dealt with separately. The absence of said

limitation in our Penal Code does not, to our mind, affect substantially the spirit

of said Article 48. Indeed, if one act constitutes two or more offenses, there can be

no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of saidoffenses put together. In directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in

such case, imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 could have had no other

purpose than to prescribe a penalty lowerthan the aggregate of the penalties for

each offense, if imposed separately. The reason for this benevolent spirit of article48 is readily discernible. When two or more crimes are the result of a single act,

the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said crimes thru

separate and distinct acts. Instead of sentencing him for each crime independentlyfrom the other, he must suffer the maximum of the penalty for the more serious

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

28/74

one, on the assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate

penalties for each offense.12

The rejection of both options shapes and determines the primary ruling of the Court, which is

thatHernandezremains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with

any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to itscommission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion.

This, however, does not writefinisto the case. Petitioner's guilt or innocence is not here inquiredinto, much less adjudged. That is for the trial court to do at the proper time. The Court's ruling

merely provides a take-off point for the disposition of other questions relevant to the petitioner's

complaints about the denial of his rights and to the propriety of the recourse he has taken.

The Court rules further (by a vote of 11 to 3) that the information filed against the petitioner does

in fact charge an offense. Disregarding the objectionable phrasing that would complex rebellionwith murder and multiple frustrated murder, that indictment is to be read as chargingsimple

rebellion. Thus, inHernandez, the Court said:

In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations of the amended

information against defendant-appellant Amado V. Hernandez, the murders,

arsons and robberies described therein are mere ingredients of the crime ofrebellion allegedly committed by said defendants, as means "necessary" (4) forthe perpetration of said offense of rebellion; that the crime chargedin the

aforementioned amended information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the

complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies; that themaximum penalty imposable under such charge cannot exceed twelve (12) years

ofprision mayorand a fine of P2H,HHH; and that, in conformity with the policy

of this court in dealing with accused persons amenable to a similar punishment,said defendant may be allowed bail.13

The plaint of petitioner's counsel that he is charged with a crime that does not exist in the statutebooks, while technically correct so far as the Court has ruled that rebellion may not be

complexed with other offenses committed on the occasion thereof, must therefore be dismissed

as a mere flight of rhetoric. Read in the context ofHernandez, the information does indeedcharge the petitioner with a crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple

rebellion.

Was the petitioner charged without a complaint having been initially filed and/or preliminary

investigation conducted? The record shows otherwise, that a complaint against petitioner for

simple rebellion was filed by the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, and that on

the strength of said complaint a preliminary investigation was conducted by the respondentprosecutors, culminating in the filing of the questioned information.

14There is nothing

inherently irregular or contrary to law in filing against a respondent an indictment for an offense

different from what is charged in the initiatory complaint, if warranted by the evidencedeveloped during the preliminary investigation.

7/24/2019 article 6.48 1-6

29/74

It is also contended that the respondent Judge issued the warrant for petitioner's arrest without

firstpersonallydetermining the existence of probable cause by examining under oath or

affirmation the complainant and his witnesses, in violation of Art. III, sec. 2, of theConstitution.

15This Court has already ruled, however, that it is not the unavoidable duty of the

judge to make such a personal examination, it being sufficient that he follows established

procedure bypersonallyevaluating the report and the supporting documents submitted by theprosecutor.16

Petitioner claims that the warrant of arrest issued barely one hour and twentyminutes after the case was raffled off to the respondent Judge, which hardly gave the latter

sufficient time to personally go over the voluminous records of the preliminary

investigation.17

Merely because said respondent had what some might consider only a relativelybrief period within which to comply with that duty, gives no reason to assume that he had not, or

could not have, so complied; nor does that single circumstance suffice to overcome the legal

presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.

Petitioner finally claims that he was denied the right to bail. In the light of the Court's

reaffirmation ofHernandezas applicable to petitioner's case, and of the logical and necessary

corollary that the information against him should be considered as charging only the crime ofsimple rebellion, which is bailable before conviction, that must now be accepted as a correct

proposition. But the question remains: Given the facts from which this case arose, was a petitionfor habeas corpusin this Court the appropriate vehicle for asserting a right to bail or vindicatingits denial?

The criminal case before the respondent Judge was the normal venue for invoking the petitioner'sright to have provisional liberty pending trial and judgment. The original jurisdiction to grant or

deny bail rested with said 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 reason ofthe weakness of the evidence against him. Only after that remedy was denied by the trial court

should the review jurisdiction of this Court have been invoked, and even then, not without first

applying to the Court of Appeals if appropriate relief was also available there.

Even acceptance of petitioner's premise that g