Group 1 G.R. Nos. L-6025-26. July 18, 1956

G.R. Nos. L-6025-26.
July 18, 1956

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintif-Appellee,
vs.
AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
Facts:
That on or about March 15, 1945, and for some time before the said date and
continuously thereafter until the present time, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and
the place which they had chosen as the nerve center 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 Defendants charged
in criminal cases of the Court of First Instance of Manila and also with others whose
whereabouts and identities are still unknown, the said accused and their coconspirators, being then officers and/or members of, or otherwise associated with
the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO) formerly known as the Committee on
Labor Organization (CLO), an active agency, organ, and instrumentality of the
Communist Party of the Philippines, and as such agency, organ, and instrumentality,
fully cooperates in, and synchronizes its activities with the rebellious activities of
the Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan, and other organs, agencies, and
instrumentalities of the Communist Party of the Philippines to thereby assure,
facilitate, and effect the complete and permanent success of the armed rebellion
against the Republic of the Philippines, which is now actively engaged in an armed
rebellion against the Government of the Philippines through acts therefor committed
and planned to be further committed in Manila and other places in the Philippines,
and of which party the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB) is the armed force,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously help, support, promote,
maintain, cause, direct and/or command the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan
(HMB) to rise publicly and take arms against the Republic of the Philippines, or
otherwise participate in such armed public uprising, for the purpose of removing the
territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to the government and laws thereof
as in fact the said Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan have risen publicly and taken
arms to attain the said purpose by then and there making armed raids, sorties and
ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army detachments as well as
innocent civilians, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in
connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, have then and there committed
acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned destruction of private
and public property to create and spread chaos, disorder, terror, and fear so as to
facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose.
Issue:
I.
II.
Whether or not the crime of rebellion may be complexed with murder,

arson or robbery.
Whether or not the defendant may be allowed to bail.
Held:
1. The murders, arsons and robberies described therein are mere ingredients of
the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by said Defendants, as means
necessary for for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion that the crime
charged in the aforementioned amended information is, therefore, simple
rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and
robberies.
HERNANDEZ DOCTRINE: Rebellion cannot be complexed with common crimes
such as killings, destruction of property, etc., committed on the occasion and
in furtherance thereof. The thinking is not anymore correct more so that there
is no legal basis for such rule now. Rebellion constitutes ONLY ONE CRIME
2. It is urged that, in the exercise of its discretion, the Court should deny the
motion under consideration, because the security of the State so requires,
and because the judgment of conviction appealed from indicates that the
evidence of guilt of Amado V. Hernandez is strong. However, as held in a
resolution of this court, dated January 29, 1953, in the case of Montano vs.
Ocampo (G.R. L-6352):
chanrobles
to deny bail it is not enough that the evidence of guilt is strong; it must also
appear that in case of conviction the Defendants criminal liability would probably
cralaw
call for a capital punishment. No clear or conclusive showing before this Court has
been made.
In fact, in the case at bar, Defendant Amado V. Hernandez was sentenced by the
lower court, not to the extreme penalty, but to life imprisonment. Furthermore,
individual freedom is too basic, too transcendental and vital in a republican state,
like ours, to be denied upon mere general principles and abstract consideration of
public safety. Indeed, the preservation of liberty is such a major preoccupation of
our political system that, not satisfied with guaranteeing its enjoyment in the very
first paragraph of section (1) of the Bill of Rights, the framers of our Constitution
devoted paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17),
(18), and (21) of said section (1) to the protection of several aspects of freedom.
Thus, in line with the letter and spirit of the fundamental law, we said in the
aforementioned case of Montano vs. Ocampo:
Exclusion from bail in capital offenses being an exception to the otherwise absolute
right guaranteed by the constitution, the natural tendency of the courts has been
toward a fair and liberal appreciation, rather than otherwise, of the evidence in the
determination of the degree of proof and presumption of guilt necessary to warrant
a deprivation of that right.
In the evaluation of the evidence the probability of flight is one other important
factor to be taken into account. The sole purpose of confining accused in jail before
conviction, it has been observed, is to secure his presence at the trial. In other
words, if denial of bail is authorized in capital cases, it is only on the theory that the
proof being strong, the Defendant would flee, if he has the opportunity, rather than
face the verdict of the jury. Hence, the exception to the fundamental right to be
bailed should be applied in direct ratio to the extent of the probability of evasion of
prosecution.
The possibility of escape in this case, bearing in mind the Defendants official and
social standing and his other personal circumstances, seem remote if not nil.
This view applies fully to Amado V. Hernandez, with the particularity that there is an
additional circumstance in his favor he has been detained since January 1951, or
for more than five (5) years, and it may still take some time to dispose of the case,
for the same has not been, and is not in a position to be, included, as yet, in our
calendar, inasmuch as the briefs for some Appellants other than Hernandez as
well as the brief for the Government, are pending submission. It should be noted,
also, that the decision appealed from the opposition to the motion in question do
not reveal satisfactorily and concrete, positive act of the accused showing,
sufficiently, that his provincial release, during the pendency of the appeal, would
jeopardize the security of the State.
Wherefore, the aforementioned motion for bail of Defendant- Appellant Amado V.
Hernandez is hereby granted and, upon the filing of a bond, with sufficient sureties,
in the sum of P30,000, and its approval by the court, let said DefendantAppellant be provisionally released. It is SO ORDERED.

Group 1 G.R. Nos. L-6025-26. July 18, 1956

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group 1 G.R. Nos. L-6025-26. July 18, 1956

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group 1 G.R. Nos. L-6025-26. July 18, 1956

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. Nos. L-6025-26.

July 18, 1956

Whether or not the crime of rebellion may be complexed with murder,

You might also like