ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW

Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista 1

CASES UNDER REBELLION, INSURECTION, COUP D’ ETAT collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty,
damages to property, physical injuries and loss of life, and the
PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ et al.
hunger, illness and unhappiness that war leaves in its wake.
Nos. L-6025-26 | July 18, 1956
In the case at bar, being within the purview of
Facts: On March 15, 1945 and for some time before the date
"engaging in war" and "committing serious violence", said act
and continuously thereafter in the City of Manila, the accused
of resorting to arms, with the resulting impairment or
and their co-conspirators who were then officers and/or
destruction of life and property—when, as alleged in the
members or associated with the Congress of Labor
information, performed "as a necessary means to commit
Organizations (CLO) which is an active organ of the Partido
rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance
Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) fully cooperates in and
thereof" and "so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the *
synchronizes its activities with the rebellious activities of the
* * purpose" of the rebellion—constitutes neither two or
Hukbong Mapalayang Bayan (HMB) aka the HUKS to assure
more offenses, nor a complex crime, but one crime—that of
the success of the rebellion against the Republic of the
rebellion, plain and simple, punishable with one single penalty,
Philippines.
namely, that prescribed in said Article 135.
The accused willfully and unlawfully help, support
The language of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
promote the Huks to rise publicly and take arms against the
presupposes the commission of two or more crimes, and
Republic of the Philippines or otherwise participate in such
hence, does not apply when the culprit is guilty of only one
armed public uprising, for the purpose of removing the
crime. Thus, the murders, arsons, and robberies described
territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to the
herein are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly
government and laws thereof as in fact the Huks have risen committed by defendants and cannot be
publicly and taken arms to attain the said purpose by making
armed raids, ambush, attacks against police, and as a ENRILE v. SALAZAR
necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in G.R. No. 92163 | June 5, 1990
connection therewith and in furtherance thereof have
Facts: In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate
committed acts of murder, pillage looting, plunder, etc. to
Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law
create and spread chaos, terror and fear so as to facilitate the
enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the
accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose.
National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant
The prosecution maintains that Hernandez is charged issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of
with, and has been convicted of, rebellion complexed with Quezon City. The warrant had issued on an information signed
murders, arsons and robberies, for which the capital and earlier that day filed by a panel of prosecutors, charging
punishment, it is claimed, may be imposed, although the lower Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and
court sentenced him merely to life imprisonment. Upon the Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion with murder
other hand, the defense contends, among other things, that and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during
rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, arson, or the period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to
robbery. December 10, 1990. Senator Enrile was taken to and held
overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila,
Issue: Whether or not the crime of Rebellion can be
without bail, none having been recommended in the
complexed with murder, arson, and robbery.
information and none fixed in the arrest warrant.
Held: No.
The following morning, February 28, 1990, he was
According to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon City where he was
one of the means by which rebellion may be committed is by given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the
"engaging in war against the forces of the government" and Northern Police District, Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres.
"committing serious violence" in the prosecution of said war.
On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator
These expressions imply everything that war connotes,
Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for habeas corpus
namely: resort to arms, requisition of property and services,
herein (which was followed by a supplemental petition filed on
Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista 2

March 2, 1990), alleging that he was deprived of his for the commission, of rebellion, but not to acts
constitutional rights in being, or having been: committed in the course of a rebellion which also
constitute “common” crimes of grave or less grave
a) held to answer for criminal offense which does not
character;
exist in the statute books;
b) charged with a criminal offense in an information for III. Maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion
which no complaint was initially filed or preliminary absorb all other offenses committed in its course,
investigation was conducted, hence was denied due whether or not necessary to its commission or in
process; furtherance thereof.
c) denied his right to bail; and
Issue: Whether or not the Court should, abandon, maintain,
d) arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant
or determine the boundaries of the doctrines laid down in the
issued without the judge who issued it first having
case of People v Hernandez; vis-à-vis
personally determined the existence of probable
cause. Whether or not Enrile should be charged with crime
of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder or
The Court issued the writ, thereafter, the Solicitor General
rebellion alone.
filed a consolidated return for the respondents. Said return
urged that the petitioners’ case does not fall within the Held: The Court rejected the first two options.
Hernandez ruling because—and this is putting it very simply— On the first option, eleven (11) Members of the Court
the information in Hernandez charged murders and other voted against abandoning Hernandez. Two (2) Members felt
common crimes committed as a necessary means for the that the doctrine should be re-examined. In the view of the
commission of rebellion. Whereas, the information against majority, the ruling remains good law, its substantive and
Sen. Enrile et al. charged murder and frustrated murder logical bases have withstood all subsequent challenges and no
committed on the occasion, but not in furtherance, of new ones are presented here persuasive enough to warrant a
rebellion. Stated otherwise, the Solicitor General would complete reversal.
distinguish between the complex crime (“delito complejo”)
arising from an offense being a necessary means for This view is reinforced by the fact that not too long
committing another, which is referred to in the second clause ago, the incumbent President, saw fit to repeal, among others,
of Article 48, Revised Penal Code, and is the subject of the Presidential Decree No. 942 which precisely sought to nullify
Hernandez ruling, and the compound crime (“delito or neutralize Hernandez. In thus acting, the President in effect
compuesto”) arising from a single act constituting two or more by legislative fiat reinstated Hernandez as binding doctrine
grave or less grave offenses referred to in the first clause of the with the effect of law. The Court can do no less than accord it
same paragraph, with which Hernandez was not concerned the same recognition, absent any sufficiently powerful reason
and to which, therefore, it should not apply. against so doing.

The Court now has three options: On the second option, the Court unanimously voted
to reject the theory that Hernandez is, or should be, limited in
I. Abandon Hernandez and adopt the minority view its application to offenses committed as a necessary means for
expressed in the main dissent of Justice Montemayor the commission of rebellion and that the ruling should not be
in said case that rebellion cannot absorb more serious interpreted as prohibiting the complexing of rebellion with
crimes, and that under Article 48 of the Revised Penal other common crimes committed on the occasion, but not in
Code rebellion may properly be complexed with furtherance, thereof While four Members of the Court felt that
common offenses, so-called; this option was the proponents’ arguments were not entirely devoid of merit.
suggested by the Solicitor General in oral argument
although it is not offered in Montemayor’s written There is one other reason—and a fundamental one at
pleadings; that —why Article 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in
the case at bar.
II. Hold Hernandez applicable only to offenses
committed in furtherance, or as a necessary means

Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista 3

If murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the ENRILE v. AMIN
two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this could G.R. No. 93335 | September 13, 1990
be done), the following penalties would be imposable upon the
Facts: Together with the filing in an information charging
movant, namely:
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile as having committed rebellion
1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding complexed with murder with RTC Quezon, government
P20,000 and prision mayor, in the corresponding prosecutors filed another information charging him for
period, depending upon the modifying circumstances violation of PD 1829 with the RTC of Makati. The second
present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision information reads:
mayor; and
On December 1, 1989 at Dasmarinas Village, Makati, Metro
2) for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its Manila the above named accused, having reasonable ground to
maximum period to death, depending upon the believe or suspect that Ex-Col. Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan has
modifying circumstances present. In other words, in committed a crime, did then and there feloniously, willfully and
the absence of aggravating circumstances, the knowingly obstruct, impede, frustrate and delay the apprehension
of Honasan by harboring and concealing him in his house.
extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him.
On March 2, 1991, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion
However, under Article 48 said penalty would have to be
meted out to him, even in the absence of a single aggravating a) to hold in abeyance the issuance of warrant of arrest
circumstance. pending personal determination by the court of
probable cause, and
Thus, said provision, if construed in conformity with
the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the b) dismiss the case and expunge the information from
movant, defeating the object of Article 48 which provides a the record.
penalty favorable to the accused based on the principle of Pro
On March 16, 1990, Judge denied the Omnibus Motion on
Rea that the accused having committed a complex crime is less
the basis of a finding that there was a probable cause to hold
perverse.
accused Enrile liable for violation of PD 1829.
Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was enacted for
On March 21, 1990, the petitioner filed a Motion for
the purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a
Reconsideration and to Quash Dismiss the Information on the
penalty more severe.
grounds that:
The rejection of both options shapes and determines
a) The facts charged do not constitute an offense;
the primary ruling of the Court, which is that Hernandez
remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the b) The finding of probable cause was devoid of factual
complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on and legal basis, and
the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its c) The pending charge of rebellion complexed with
commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that murder and frustrated murder against Senator Enrile
constitutes rebellion. as alleged conspirator of Honasan, based on their
WHEREFORE, the Court reiterates that based on the doctrine meeting on December 1, 1989, precludes the
enunciated in People vs. Hernandez, the questioned prosecution for the harboring or concealing the
information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the Colonel on the same occasion under PD 1829.
spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging Issue: Whether or not the petitioner could be separately
simple rebellion only, hence said petitioners are entitled to charged for violation of PD 1829 notwithstanding the rebellion
bail, before final conviction, as a matter of right. case earlier filed against him.

Held: No. Respondent Judge Amin sustained the charge of

violation of PD 1829 notwithstanding the rebellion case filed
against the petitioner on the theory that the former involves a
special law while the latter is based on RPC or a general law.
Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista 4

Hernandez Doctrine remains binding, operating to  Necessarily, being in conspiracy with Honasan, petitioner’s
prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense alleged act of harboring or concealing was for no other
committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means purpose but in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus
constituting a component thereof. It was motivated by the
necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an
single intent or resolution to commit the crime of rebellion.
activity that constitutes rebellion.
 The decisive factor is the intent or the motive.
In the case at bar, applying the Hernandez Doctrine, if
a person cannot be charged with the complex crime of The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is
rebellion for the greater penalty to be applied, neither can he described as a vast movement of men and a complex net of
be charged separately for two different offenses where one intrigues and plot. Jurisprudence tell us that acts committed in
is component element or in furtherance of rebellion. furtherance of the rebellion through crimes are in themselves
deemed absorbed in one single crime of rebellion.
The petitioner is presently charged with having
violated PD 1829 particularly Section 1(c) which reads: In the case at bar, the act of harboring or concealing
Col. Honasan is clearly a mere component or ingredient of
“SECTION 1. The penalty of prison correccional in its
rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It
maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both,
shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully
cannot therefore be made the basis of a separate charge.
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of  So a defendant may not be made liable for murder as a
suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by separate crime or in conjunction with another offense
committing any of the following acts: where, as in this case, it is averred as a constitutive
ingredient of the crime.
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any
person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or The prosecution tries to distinguish by contending that
suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal harboring or concealing a fugitive is punishable under a
laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and special law while the rebellion case is based on the Revised
conviction
Penal Code; hence, prosecution under one law will not bar a
The prosecution in this Makati case alleges that the prosecution under the other. This argument is specious in
petitioner entertained and accommodated Honasan by giving rebellion cases.
him food and comfort on December 1, 1989 in his house.
In the light of the Hernandez doctrine the prosecution’s
Knowing that Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen. Enrile
theory must fail. The rationale remains the same.
allegedly did not do anything to have him apprehended or
arrested. And because of such failure the petitioner prevented “All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or
Col. Honasan’s arrest and conviction in violation of Section 1 general law, which are mere components or ingredients, or
(c) of PD No. 1829. committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the
crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated and charged as
The rebellion charges in Quezon City were based on
separate crimes in themselves.”
the affidavits executed by three employees of Silahis
International Hotel who stated that fugitive Col. Gregorio Absorption doctrine may apply to common crimes in the
“Gringo” Honasan and some 100 rebel soldiers attended the RPC. The attendant circumstances in the instant case,
mass and birthday party held at the residence of the petitioner however, constrain us to rule that the theory of absorption in
in the evening of December 1, 1989. rebellion cases must not confine itself to common crimes but
also to offenses under special laws which are perpetrated in
 In such a situation, the talking in his house in the presence
furtherance of the political offense.
of 100 uniformed soldiers who were fully armed that they
were co-conspirators in the failed December coup. In the case at bar, it is clear that the petitioner’s alleged
The factual allegations supporting the rebellion act of harboring or concealing which was based on his acts of
charge constitute or include the very incident which gave rise conspiring with Honasan was committed in connection with
to the charge of the violation under PD 1829. or in furtherance of rebellion and must now be deemed as

Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista 5

absorbed by, merged in, and identified with the crime of the court a quo found accused-appellant guilty beyond
rebellion punished in Articles 134 and 135 of the RPC. reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.

Therefore, the court called the prosecution to pick Hence, the instant appeal, in which the sole issue
between charging between PD 1829 or rebellion. It cannot interposed is that portion of trial court decision finding him
complex the rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated guilty of the crime of murder and not rebellion.
murder. Neither can it prosecute him for rebellion in Quezon
In his Brief, he asseverates that Armenta, a police
City and violation of P.D 1829 in Makati. It should be noted
informer, identified him as a member of the New People’s
that there is in fact a separate prosecution for rebellion already
Army. Additionally, he contends that because the killing of
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. In such a
Lucilo was “a means to or in furtherance of subversive ends,”
case, the independent prosecution under PD 1829 cannot
(said killing) should-have been deemed absorbed in the crime
prosper.
of rebellion under Arts. 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code.
The intent or motive is a decisive factor. If Senator Ponce
The Solicitor General avers that the crime committed
Enrile is not charged with rebellion and he harbored or
by appellant may be considered as rebellion only if the defense
concealed Colonel Honasan simply because the latter is a
itself had conclusively proven that the motive or intent for the
friend and former associate, the motive for the act is
killing of the policeman was for “political and subversive ends.”
completely different. But if the act is committed with political
Moreover, the Solicitor General contends that even if
or social motives, which is in furtherance of rebellion, then it
appellant were to be convicted of rebellion, the proper
should be deemed to form part of the crime of rebellion
imposable penalty is not prision mayor as appellant contends,
instead of being punished separately.
but reclusion temporal, because E.O. No. 187 as amended by
PEOPLE v. LOVEDIORO R.A. No. 6968, the Coup D’etat Law, prescribes reclusion
G.R. No. 112235 | November 29, 1995 temporal as the penalty imposable for individuals found guilty
as participants in a rebellion.
Facts: Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking
along Burgos St., away from the Daraga, Albay Public Market Issue: Whether or not Castro should be made liable for the
when a man suddenly walked beside him, pulled a .45 caliber crime of rebellion and not murder.
gun from his waist, aimed the gun at the policeman’s right ear Held: No.
and fired. The man who shot Lucilo had three other
In People v. Hernandez, the court held that political
companions with him, one of whom shot the fallen policeman
crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as
four times as he lay on the ground. After taking the latter’s gun,
well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve
the man and his companions boarded a tricycle and fled.
a political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive.
The incident was witnessed from a distance of about If a crime usually regarded as common, like homicide, is
nine meters by Nestor Armenta, a 25 year old welder from perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance
Pilar, Sorsogon, who claimed that he knew both the victim and ‘to the Government the territory of the Philippine Islands or
the man who fired the fatal shot. Armenta identified the man any part thereof,’ then it becomes stripped of its “common”
who fired at the deceased as Elias Lovedioro, his nephew complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime of
(appellant’s father was his first cousin) and alleged that he rebellion, the former acquires the political character of the
knew the victim from the fact that the latter was a resident of latter.
Bagumbayan.
From the foregoing, it is plainly obvious that it is not
Lucilo died on the same day of massive blood loss enough that the overt acts of rebellion are duly proven. Both
from multiple gunshot wounds on the face, the chest, and purpose and overt acts are essential components of the crime.
other parts of the body. As a result of the killing, the office of With either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion
the provincial prosecutor of Albay, on November 6, 1992 filed legally does not exist. In fact, even in cases where the act
an Information charging accused-appellant Elias Lovedioro of complained of were committed simultaneously with or in the
the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the RPC. After trial, course of the rebellion, if the killing, robbing, or etc., were

Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista 6

accomplished for private purposes or profit, without any claimed that he had been a member of the NPA for five months
political motivation, it has been held that the crime would be before the shooting incident.
separately punishable as a common crime and would not be
It was observed that this allegation are so general
absorbed by the crime rebellion.
and non-specific that they offer no explanation as to what
Political Motive; Burden of Proof contribution the killing would have made to achievement of
NPA’s subversive aims. SPO3 Lucilo was never alleged to be an
Political motive must be alleged in the information.
informer for no acts of his were shown to have offender NPA.
Given the rebellion provides for a lesser penalty, the burden of
proof that the act committed was impelled by a political In the absence of clear and satisfactory evidence
motive lies on the accused. Motive, being a state of mind which pointing to a political motive for the killing of SPO3 Jesus
the accused, better than any individual, knows. It must be Lucilo the court upheld the finding of the crime of murder.
established by clear and satisfactory evidence.
The witness is of his blood relative, and his
It follows, therefore, that if no political motive is testimonies were enough to convict the accused. This was
established and proved, the accused should be convicted of further bolstered that the witness and the appellant, in open
the common crime and not of rebellion. In cases of rebellion, admission to the court, did not have grudges to each other. In
motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an the absence of any mitigating and aggravating circumstances,
organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would the trial court was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion
not, by and of itself, suffice. perpetua, together with all the accessories provided by law.

In the case at bar, the appellant, admitted in his The killing was adequately proved to have been
extrajudicial confession to having participated in the killing of qualified by treachery for the attack was delivered without
Lucilo. It bears emphasis that nowhere in his extrajudicial warning of any kind. The Court affirms the trial court’s
confession did appellant mention that he was a member of the decision sentencing the accused guilty of Murder.
NPA. It also reveals nothing which would suggest that the
OCAMPO v. ABANDO
killing in which he was a participant was motivated by a
G.R. No. 176830 | February 11, 2014
political purpose.
 The information filed against appellant, based on sworn Facts: On August 26, 2006, a mass grave was discovered by
statements, did not contain any mention or allusion as to 43rd Infantry Brigade of the Philippine Army as Sitio Sapang
the involvement of the NPA on the death of SPO3 Lucio, Daco, Barangay Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte. The mass grave
even eyewitness Armenta not mention. contained skeletal remains of individuals believed to be victims
of “Operation Venereal Disease” launched by members of the
As the records would show, allegations relating to the
NPA to purge their ranks of suspected military informers.
appellant’s membership in the NPA surfaced almost merely as
an afterthought, which the defense merely picked up and PC/Insp. George L. Almaden of the PNPRO-8 and Army
followed through upon Armenta’s cross-examination, Captain Allan Tie of 8th ID of AFP sent 12 undated letters to the
interestingly Armenta admitted that he was forced to pinpoint Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte through Asst. Provincial
appellant as an NPA member. Prosecutor Vivero. The request was for legal action of the 12
complaint-affidavits attached accusing 71 named members of
Petitioner’s Allegation of Political Motive
the CPP/NPA/NDFP of murder, including petitioners herein.
The viability depends on his sole and unsupported
The letter described the discovery at the mass grave
testimony. He testified that, upon the prodding of alias Alwin
site of 67 severely deteriorated skeletal remains believed to be
and alias Samuel, he joined the NPA because of the
victims of Operation VD. The PNP SOCO was dispatched to
organization’s goals.
make investigation, collect and analyze remains there was also
He claimed that his two companions shot Lucilo a forensic crime analysis for DNA sampling.
because he “had offended our organization,” without,
however, specifying what the “offense” was. Appellant

Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista 7

September 18, 2006 Initial Specialist Report was  Filed to RTC of Leyte presided by Judge Abando on 28
inconclusive with regard of the identities and the length of February 2007. On March 6, 2007 he found probable cause
time that they had been buried. Recommended further tests. and ordered the issuance of warrant of arrest against them
without bail.
October 2, 2006 Specialist Report came up with the
Petitioner argued that a case for rebellion against him
names of ten possible victims after comparison and
and 44 others was then pending before RTC Makati. Putting
examination based on testimonies of relatives and witnesses.
forward the political offense doctrine, petitioner Ocampo
The 12 complaint-affidavits were from relatives of the argues that common crimes such as murder in this case are
alleged victims of Operation VD. All of them swore that their absorbed by the crime of rebellion for it was committed as
relatives had been abducted or last seen with members of the necessary means, in connection with, and in furtherance of
CPP-NPA and were never seen again. They also expressed rebellion.
belief that their relatives’ remains were among those
Issue: WON the political offense doctrine can be used as a
discovered.
ground to dismiss the charge against petitioners prior to
Affidavits of Former Members determination by trial court that the murders were committed
There were some who narrated that they were in furtherance of rebellion.
former members of CPP/NPA/NDFP. According to them, Held: No.
Operation VD was ordered in 1985 by the Central Committee
Under the political offense doctrine, common crimes
which petitioners Ocampo, Echanis, Baylosis and Ladlad were
perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense, are divested
then members of such committee.
of their character as “common” offenses and assume the
According to these former members, four sub-groups political complexion of the main crime of which they are mere
were formed to implement Operation VD: ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be punished separately
1) Intel Group for gathering information on from the principal offense, or complexed with the same, to
suspected spies and civilians who would not justify the imposition of a graver penalty. Any ordinary act
support movement. assumes a different nature by being absorbed in the crime of
2) Arresting Group charged with their arrests. rebellion. Thus, when a killing is committed in furtherance of
rebellion, the killing is not homicide or murder. Rather, the
3) Investigation Group tasked for their questioning.
killing assumes the political complexion of rebellion as its
4) Execution Group the “cleaners” of confirmed mere ingredient and must be prosecuted and punished as
spies and civilians who would not support the rebellion alone.
movement.
When the political offense doctrine is asserted as a
From 1985 to 1992, at least 100 people had been defense in the trial court, it becomes crucial for the court to
abducted, hog-tied, tortured and executed by members determine whether the act of killing was done in furtherance
pursuant to the Operation VD as order by the CPP/NPA/NDFP of a political end, and for the political motive of the act to be
Central Committee of the questioned organization. These led conclusively demonstrated.
to the filing of the affidavits.
The burden of demonstrating political motivation
Prosecutor’s Action and Arrest must be discharged by the defense, since motive is a state of
On the basis on the 12 letters and their attachments, mind which only the accused knows. The proof showing
Vivero issued a subpoena, requiring petitioners to submit their political motivation is adduced during trial where the accused
counter-affidavit and those of their witnesses. is assured an opportunity to present evidence supporting his
defense. It is not for this Court to determine this factual
 In a resolution on 16 February 2007, Prosecutor Vivero
matter in the instant petitions.
recommended the filing of Information for 15 counts of
multiple murder against 54 names members of the As held in the case of Office of the Provincial
CPP/NPA/NDFP for the death of 15 named. Prosecutor of Zamboanga Del Norte v. Court of Appeals, if
during trial, petitioners are able to show that the alleged
Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista 8

murders were indeed committed in furtherance of rebellion, When the indictment was filed, petitioner filed
Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides the remedy, supplemental petitions to enjoin the prosecution, the Court
to wit: ordered dismissal of the rebellion case.
SECTION 14. Amendment or substitution.—A complaint or It is clear then that a first jeopardy never had a chance to
information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave attach. Hence, the case is hereby REMANDED.
of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea
and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with CRIMES AGAINST SEDITION
leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to
PEOPLE v. UMALI
the rights of the accused. However, any amendment before plea,
No. L-5803. November 29, 1954
which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or excludes
any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only Facts: Narciso Umali, Epifanio Pasumbal, and Isidro Capino
upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party
are appealing the conviction of the CFI of Quezon finding them
and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving
guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder,
the motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties,
especially the offended party. (n) If it appears at any time before
frustrated murder, arson and robbery, and sentencing them to
judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper life imprisonment and indemnification.
offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information On November 14, 1951 in Tiaong, Quezon, between
upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in
8:00PM and 9:00PM by armed men, a raid took place, resulting
accordance with Section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not
in the burning down and complete destruction of the house of
be placed in double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to
give bail for their appearance at the trial. Mayor Marcial Punzalan including its content and other houses
and wounding of a patrolman and five civilians. Some of raiders
Hence, if it is shown that the proper charge against engaged in looting, robbing and were driven away.
petitioners should have been simple rebellion, the trial court
shall dismiss the murder charges upon the filing of the Shortly before that raid (one or two years before it),
Information for simple rebellion, as long as petitioners would Narciso Umali and Marcial Punzalan were old time friends and
not be placed in double jeopardy. belonged to the same political faction. In the general elections
of 1947, Umali campaigned for Punzalan who later was elected
Double jeopardy only applies when (1) a first jeopardy Mayor of Tiaong. In the elections of 1949 it is Punzalan’s turn
attached; (2) it has been validly terminated; and (3) a second to campaign for Umali resulting to his election as
jeopardy is for the same offense in the first. Congressman.
 First, jeopardy attaches only after the accused been
However, these friendly relations did not endure. In
acquitted or convicted, or the case has been dismissed or
the world of Punzalan, Umali became jealous of Punzalan’s fast
otherwise terminated without his express consent by a
competent court in a valid indictment for which the accused
growing popularity among the people of Tiaong who looked to
has entered a valid plea on arraignment. him instead of Umali for political guidance, leadership and
favors.
 If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake
has been made in charging the proper offense, the court  In time, they ceased to have any dealings with each other
shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon and they even filed mutual accusations.
the filing of a new one charging the proper offense
According to Punzalan, in May 1950, Umali induced
provided that the accused shall not be in double jeopardy.
about 26 of special policemen of his to flee to the mountains
In the case at bar, an information for the crime of rebellion and join the Huks to discredit his administration. He was later
as penalized under Article 134 and 135 of RPC was filed before able to contact two of his tweny-six policemen and tried to
RTC of Makati on May 12, 2006. However petitioners were persuade them to return to the town and to the service, but
never arraigned even before indictment for rebellion, they told him that they and their companions would not
petitioners had already filed a petition before this Court to surrender except with and through the intervention of
seek nullification of DOJ Orders on denying motion for Congressman Umali, and so Punzalan had to seek Umali's
inhibition for members of prosecution for lack of impartiality intervention which resulted in the surrender of the 26 men
and independence.
Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista 9

with their firearms; thereafter Umali wanted to have their Umali’s Version of Facts. – Respondent said that he did not see
firearms, claiming that they all belonged to him from his the two men until they arrived about midnight when the Army
guerrilla days when he was a colonel, and that after liberation reinforcements from Lucena passed by on their way to Tiaong.
he had merely loaned them to the municipal authorities of
The natural and logical reaction on the part of Umali
Tiaong to help keep peace and order; and that the refusal of
and Pasumbal would have been to rush to Tiaong, see what
Punzalan to grant Umali's request further strained their
had really happened and then render help and give succor to
relations, and that thereafter Umali would not speak to him
the stricken residents, including their own relatives. It will be
even when they happened to meet at parties.
remembered that the houses of the fathers of Umali and
On September 19, 1951, Chief of Police of Punzalan Pasumbal were in Tiaong and their parents and relatives were
disarmed four of Umali’s men for illegal possession of firearms. residing there. And yet, instead of following a natural impulse
Umali then intercede for his men, and the provincial and urge to go to Tiaong, they fled in the opposite direction
commander sent a telegram stating that the firearms were towards Candelaria.
licensed, dismissing the complaint.
Fortunately, however, and apparently unknown to
Elections of November 13, 1951 the attackers and those who designed the raid, at six o'clock
that morning of November 14th Punzalan and his Chief of
Punzalan ran for re-election. To oppose him, and to
Police had left Tiaong to go to Lucena, the capital, to report the
clip his political wings and definitely blast his ambition for
results of the election to the Governor.
continued power and influence in Tiaong, Umali picked
Epifanio Pasumbal, his trusted leader. Issue: WON the raid conducted through the help of the Huk
will absorb the crimes of multiple murder, frustrated murder,
The pre-election campaign was intense and bitter,
arson and robbery. OR Whether or not there is such a complex
even ruthless. The election was to be a test of political strength
crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder,
and would determine who was who in Tiaong, — Umali or
arson and robbery.
Punzalan. There were exchanges of bad accusations and
reputes. Held: The Court is convinced that the principal and main,
though not necessarily the most serious, crime committed
Punzalan beat Pasumbal by an overwhelming
here was not rebellion but rather that of sedition.
majority of 2,221 votes. Naturally, Umali and Pasumbal were
keenly disappointed, and according to the evidence, adopted The purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in
measures calculated to frustrate Punzalan's victory. rising publicly and taking up arms was not exactly against the
Government and for the purpose of doing the things defined
Raid Narration
in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code under rebellion. The
Amado Mendoza narrates that on morning of raiders did not even attack the Presidencia, the seat of local
November 12, he heard Umali instruct Pasumbal to contact the Government. Rather, the object was to attain by means of
Huks through Commander Abeng so that Punzalan will be force, intimidation, etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of
killed. Abeng and Pasumbal had a conference. It would seem hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public
that Umali and Pasumbal had a feeling that Punzalan was going official, namely, Punzalan who was then Mayor of Tiaong.
to win in the elections the next day, and that his death was the Under Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code this was sufficient
surest way to eliminate him from the electoral fight. to constitute sedition.
 He saw armed men in the lanzones grove just across the As regards the crime of robbery with which
street from their house, belonging to the father of Umali, appellants were charged and of which they were convicted,
and among those men they saw Congressman Umali
the Court are also of the opinion that it was not one of the
holding a revolver, in the company of Huk Commander
purposes of the raid, which was mainly to kidnap or kill
Torio and about 20 armed men. Afterwards they saw Umali
and his companions leave in the direction of Taguan, by way Punzalan and destroy his house. The robberies were actually
of the railroad tracks. The raid was well-planned even with committed by only some of the raiders, presumably dissidents,
a diversionary measure. as an afterthought, because of the opportunity offered by the
confusion and disorder resulting from the shooting and the
Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista 10

burning of the three houses, the articles being intended and other companions of the Constabulary, with its grave
presumably to replenish the supplies of the dissidents in the consequences for a Constabulary soldier, engendered a deep
mountains. For these robberies, only those who actually took feeling of resentment on the part of the soldiers at Santa Lucia
part therein are responsible, and not the three appellants Barracks. This resentment was soon converted into a desire
herein. for revenge against the police force of the city of Manila. The
officers of the Constabulary appear to have been aware of the
With respect to the crime of multiple frustrated
state of excitement among the soldiers at Santa Lucia Barracks
murder, while the assault upon policeman Pedro Lacorte with
because almost immediately after the shooting of private
a hand grenade causing him injuries resulting in his blindness
Macasinag, Captain Page, the commanding officer of the
in one eye, may be regarded as frustrated murder; the
barracks, increased the number of guards, and confined all the
wounding of Ortega, Aselo, Rivano, Garcia and Lector should
soldiers in the barracks.
be considered as mere physical injuries.
During the afternoon of the next day, December 15,
SEDITION DID NOT ABSORB OTHER COMMON CRIMES
1920, a rumor spread among the soldiers in Santa Lucia
The crimes committed are, therefore, those of Barracks to the effect that policeman Mojica was allowed to
sedition, multiple murder, arson, frustrated murder and continue on duty on the streets of Intramuros and that private
physical injuries. The killing may, however, be qualified by Macasinag had died as a consequence of the shot he received
treachery, the raiders using firearms against which the victims the night before. This rumor contributed in no small degree in
were defenseless, with the aggravating circumstance of abuse precipitating a movement for reprisal by the Constabulary
of superior strength. The three murders may be punished with soldiers against the policemen.
the penalty of death. However, because of lack of the
At about 7 o’clock in the evening of the same day,
necessary votes, the penalty should be life imprisonment.
corporal Ingles of the Fourth Company approached Private
In conclusion, we find appellants guilty of sedition, Nicolas Torio who was then the man in charge of quarters, and
multiple murder, arson, frustrated murder and physical asked him to let the soldiers out through the window of the
injuries. It shall be understood, however, that pursuant to the quarters of the Fourth Company. Private Torio was easily
provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code the duration persuaded to permit Private Francisco Garcia of the Second
of all penalties shall not exceed 40 years. Company to saw out the window bars of the quarters in his
charge, and to allow soldiers to escape through the window
PEOPLE v. CABRERA
with rifles and ammunition under the command of their
G.R. No. 17748 | March 4, 1922
sergeants and corporals. When outside of the quarters, these
Facts: On December 13, 1920, policemen of the city of soldiers divided into groups for attack upon the city police
Manila arrested a woman who was a member of the household force.
of a Constabulary soldier stationed at the Santa Lucia Barracks
One platoon of Constabulary soldiers apparently
in this city. The arrest of the woman was considered by some
numbering about ten or twelve, on Calle Real, Intramuros fired
of the Constabulary soldiers at Santa Lucia Barracks as an
in the direction of the intersection of Calles Real and Cabildo
outrage committed by the policemen, and it instantly gave rise
where an American policeman named Driskill was stationed,
to friction between members of the Manila police department
and was talking with a friend named Jacumin, a field clerk in
and members of the Philippine Constabulary.
the United States Army. These two men were shot and died
The next day, December 14, at about sunset, a soon afterwards. To the credit of policeman Driskill be it said,
policeman named Artemio Mojica posted on Calle Real, in the that although in a dying condition and in the face of
District of Intramuros, city of Manila, had an encounter with overwhelming odds, he valiantly returned the fire with his
various Constabulary soldiers which resulted in the shooting of revolver. Jacumin was killed notwithstanding that in response
private Macasina of the Constabulary. Private Macasinag was to the command of the Constabulary, "Hands up!" he elevated
seriously, and, as afterwards appeared, mortally wounded. both arms.
The encounter between policeman Mojica and other A street car happened to stop at this time at the
companions of the Manila police force and private Macasinag corner of Calles Real and Cabildo. Without considering that the
Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista 11

passengers in the car were innocent passersby, the In the morning of the next day, December 16, 1920,
Constabulary squad fired a volley into the car, killing instantly Colonel Lucien R. Sweet of the Constabulary, in compliance
the passenger named Victor de Torres and gravely wounding with orders from General Crame, and assisted by other
three other civilian passengers, Gregorio Cailles, Vicente Constabulary officers, and later by the fiscals of the city of
Antonio, and Mariano Cortes. Father Jose Tahon, a priest of the Manila, commenced an investigation of the events of the night
Cathedral of Manila, proved himself of here on this occasion before. He first ordered that all the soldiers in Santa Lucia
for, against the command of the Constabulary, he persisted in Barracks, at that time numbering some one hundred and
persuading them to cease firing and advanced in order that he eighty, be assembled on the parade grounds, and when this
might administer spiritual aid to those who had been was done, the soldiers were separated into their respective
wounded. companies. Then Colonel Sweet, speaking in English, with the
assistance of Captain Silvino Gallardo, who interpreted his
The firing on Calle Real did not end at that time. Some
remarks into Tagalog, made two brief statements. The first
minutes later, Captain William E. Wichman, assistant chief of
was, in effect: "Those of you who for one reason or another
police of the city of Manila, riding in a motorcycle driven by
left the Barracks last night, may step forward." Responding to
policeman Saplala, arrived at the corner of Calles Real and
this order, nearly one hundred moved to the front. Thereupon,
Magallanes in Intramuros, and a volley of shots by
Colonel Sweet said to these: "For the good of the body to
Constabulary soldiers resulted in the instantaneous death of
which you belong, of your companions, and of yourselves,
Captain Wichman and the death shortly afterwards of
those who participated in the riot last night may take another
patrolman Saplala.
step forward." Seventy-three soldiers then advanced a step.
About the same time, a police patrol came from the The names of four others who took part but who were not
Meisic police station. When it was on Calle Real near Cabildo, present were taken down by Captain Gallardo.
in Intramuros, it was fire upon by Constabulary soldiers who
The defendants were charged in one information filed
had stationed themselves in the courtyard of the San Agustin
in the CFI of the city of Manila with the crime of sedition, and
Church. This attack resulted in the death of patrolmen Trogue
in another information filed in the same court, with the crimes
and Sison.
of murder and serious physical injuries. The two cases were
Another platoon of the Constabulary, between thirty tried separately before different judges of first instance. In the
and forty in number, had, in the meantime, arranged sedition case, which came on for trial first, all of the accused,
themselves in a firing line on the Sunken Gardens on the east with the exception of eight, namely, Francisco Ingles, Juan
side of Calle General Luna opposite the Aquarium. From this Noromor, P. E. Vallado, Dionisio Verdadero, Francisco Garcia,
advantageous position the Constabulary fired upon the Benigno Tagavilla, Felix Lamsing and Paciano Cana pleaded
motorcycle occupied by sergeant Armada and driven by guilty, but later, after the first witness for the prosecution had
policeman Policarpio who with companions were passing testified, the accused who had pleaded guilty were permitted,
along Calle General Luna in front of the Aquarium going in the with the consent of the court, to substitute therefor the plea
direction of Calle Real, Intramuros. As a result of the shooting, of not guilty. In the murder case, all entered a plea of not
the driver of the motorcycle, policeman Policarpio, was guilty. On petition of the defense, two assessors were chosen
mortally wounded. This same platoon of Constabulary soldiers to sit with the judge.
fired several volleys indiscriminately into the Luneta police
The attorneys for the accused presented three
station, and the office of the secret service of the city of Manila
defenses. The first defense was that of double-jeopardy; the
across Calles General Luna and Padre Burgos, but fortunately
second was based on the contention that the written
no one was injured.
statements Exhibits C to C-76 were not freely and voluntarily
General Rafael Crame, Chief of the Constabulary, and made by the defendants; and the third defense, in favor of the
Captain Page, commanding officer of the Santa Lucia Barracks, defendants Vicente Casimiro, Juan Noromor, Salvador
rounded up some of the soldiers in the streets of Manila, and Gregorio, Paciano Cana, Juan Abarquez, Mariano Garcia, Felix
other soldiers one after another returned to the Barracks Liron, Bonifacio Eugnio, Patricio Bello, Baldomero Rodriguez,
where they were disarmed. No list of the names of these Roberto Palabay, Roque Ebol, Ildefonso de la Cruz, Cipriano
soldiers was, however, made.
Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista 12

Lizardo, Franciso Garcia, Genaro Elayda, Hilario Hibalar, constitute the offense charged in the second information. The
Primitivo E. Vallado, Maximo Perlas, and Benigno Tagavilla, defendants may have been tried for the same act or acts; they
was to the effect that they did not take part in the riot. have not been put in jeopardy for the same offense.

Issue: WON the offenses charged in the two informations The Court ruled that the trial court did not err in not
constitutes double-jeopardy. allowing the defense of double jeopardy.

WON there is a conspiracy between the accused. THE CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE ACCUSED

Held: (1) No. (2) Yes. It is primary rule that if two or more persons combine
to perform a criminal act, each is responsible for all the acts
THE DEFENSE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
of the others done in furtherance of the common design; and
The constitutional inhibition in the Philippine Bill of "the result is the same if the act is divided into parts and each
Rights is "that no person for the same offense shall twice be person proceeds with this part unaided."
put in jeopardy of punishment."
Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of
Sedition is not the same offense as murder. Sedition indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances which vary
is a crime against public order; murder is a crime against according to the purposes to be accomplished. If it be proved
persons. Sedition is a crime directed against the existence of that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, one
the State, the Authority of the government, and the general performing one part and another part of the same, so as to
public tranquillity; murder is a crime directed against the lives complete it, with a view to the attainment of that same object,
of individuals. (U.S. v. Abad [1902], Phil., 437.) Sedition in its one will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged
more general sense is the raising of commotions or in a conspiracy to effect that object.
disturbances in the state; murder at common law is where a
In the case at bar, it is incontestable that all of the
person of sound mind and discretion unlawfully kills any
defendants were imbued with the same purpose, which was
human being, in the peace of the sovereign, with malice
to avenge themselves on the police force of the city of
aforethought, express or implied.
Manila. A common feeling of resentment animated all. A
The offenses charged in the two informations for common plan evolved from their military training was
sedition and murder are perfectly distinct in point of law followed.
however nearly they may be connected in point of fact. Not
The effort to lead the court into the realm of
alone are the offenses eo nomine different, but the allegations
psychology and metaphysics is unavailing in the face of
in the body of the informations are different. The gist of the
actualities. The existence of a joint assent may be reasonably
information for sedition is the public and tumultuous uprising
inferred from the facts proved. Not alone are the men who
of the constabulary in order to attain by force and outside of
fired the fatal shots responsible, not alone are the men who
legal methods the object of inflicting an act of hate and
admit firing their carbines responsible, but all, having united
revenge upon the persons of the police force of the city of
to further a common design of hate and vengeance, are
Manila by firing at them in several places in the city of Manila;
responsible for the legal consequences therefor.
the gist of the information in the murder case is that the
Constabulary, conspiring together illegally and criminally killed The Court ruled that the trial court did not err in
eight persons and gravely wounded three others. The crimes declaring that there was a conspiracy between the accused.
of murder and serious physical injuries were not necessarily
included in the information for sedition; and the defendants
could not have been convicted of these crimes under the first
information.

The evidence required to convict under the first

information would not have been sufficient to convict under
the second. Proof of an additional and essential fact; namely
the death of one or more human beings, was necessary to
Manresa ‘18-19