ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista
CASES UNDER REBELLION, INSURECTION, COUP D’ ETAT
PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ et al.
Nos. L-6025-26 | July 18, 1956
Facts: On March 15, 1945 and for some time before the date
and continuously thereafter in the City of Manila, the accused
and their co-conspirators who were then officers and/or
members or associated with the Congress of Labor
Organizations (CLO) which is an active organ of the Partido
Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) fully cooperates in and
synchronizes its activities with the rebellious activities of the
Hukbong Mapalayang Bayan (HMB) aka the HUKS to assure
the success of the rebellion against the Republic of the
Philippines.
The accused willfully and unlawfully help, support
promote the 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 Philippines from the allegiance to the
government and laws thereof as in fact the Huks have risen
publicly and taken arms to attain the said purpose by making
armed raids, ambush, attacks against police, and as a
necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in
connection therewith and in furtherance thereof have
committed acts of murder, pillage looting, plunder, etc. to
create and spread chaos, terror and fear so as to facilitate the
accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose.
The prosecution maintains that Hernandez is charged
with, and has been convicted of, rebellion complexed with
murders, arsons and robberies, for which the capital
punishment, it is claimed, may be imposed, although the lower
court sentenced him merely to life imprisonment. Upon the
other hand, the defense contends, among other things, that
rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, arson, or
robbery.
Issue: Whether or not the crime of Rebellion can be
complexed with murder, arson, and robbery.
Held: No.
According to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code,
one of the means by which rebellion may be committed is by
"engaging in war against the forces of the government" and
"committing serious violence" in the prosecution of said war.
These expressions imply everything that war connotes,
namely: resort to arms, requisition of property and services,
1
collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty,
damages to property, physical injuries and loss of life, and the
hunger, illness and unhappiness that war leaves in its wake.
In the case at bar, being within the purview of
"engaging in war" and "committing serious violence", said act
of resorting to arms, with the resulting impairment or
destruction of life and property—when, as alleged in the
information, performed "as a necessary means to commit
rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance
thereof" and "so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the *
* * purpose" of the rebellion—constitutes neither two or
more offenses, nor a complex crime, but one crime—that of
rebellion, plain and simple, punishable with one single penalty,
namely, that prescribed in said Article 135.
The language of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
presupposes the commission of two or more crimes, and
hence, does not apply when the culprit is guilty of only one
crime. Thus, the murders, arsons, and robberies described
herein are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly
committed by defendants and cannot be
ENRILE v. SALAZAR
G.R. No. 92163 | June 5, 1990
Facts: In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate
Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law
enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the
National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant
issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City. The warrant had issued on an information signed
and earlier that day filed by a panel of prosecutors, charging
Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and
Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion with murder
and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during
the period of the failed coup attempt 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.
On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator
Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for habeas corpus
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
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 due
process;
c) denied his right to bail; and
d) arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant
issued without the judge who issued it first having
personally determined the existence of probable
cause.
The Court issued the writ, thereafter, the Solicitor General
filed a consolidated return for the respondents. Said return
urged that the petitioners’ case does not fall within the
Hernandez ruling because—and this is putting it very simply—
the information in Hernandez charged murders and other
common crimes committed as a necessary means for the
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 of the
Hernandez 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
same paragraph, with which Hernandez was not concerned
and to which, therefore, it should not apply.
The Court now has three options:
I. Abandon Hernandez and adopt the minority view
expressed in the main dissent of 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 in Montemayor’s written
pleadings;
II. Hold Hernandez applicable only to offenses
committed in furtherance, or as a necessary means
2
for the commission, of rebellion, but not to acts
committed in the course of a rebellion which also
constitute “common” crimes of grave or less grave
character;
III. Maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion
absorb all other offenses committed in its course,
whether or not necessary to its commission or in
furtherance thereof.
Issue: Whether or not the Court should, abandon, maintain,
or determine the boundaries of the doctrines laid down in the
case of People v Hernandez; vis-à-vis
Whether or not Enrile should be charged with crime
of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder or
rebellion alone.
Held: The Court rejected the first two options.
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. In the view of the
majority, the ruling 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, saw fit to repeal, among others,
Presidential Decree No. 942 which precisely sought to nullify
or neutralize Hernandez. In thus acting, the President in effect
by legislative fiat reinstated Hernandez 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 that Hernandez is, 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 the complexing 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 were not entirely devoid of merit.
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.
Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista
If murder were not complexed with 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 and prision mayor, in the corresponding
period, depending upon the modifying circumstances
present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision
mayor; and
2) for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in 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 imposed upon him.
However, under Article 48 said penalty would have to be
meted out to him, even in the absence of a single aggravating
circumstance.
Thus, said provision, if construed in conformity with
the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the
movant, defeating the object of Article 48 which provides a
penalty favorable to the accused based on the principle of Pro
Rea that the accused having committed a complex crime is less
perverse.
Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was enacted for
the purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a
penalty more severe.
The rejection of both options shapes and determines
the primary ruling of the Court, which is that Hernandez
remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the
complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on
the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its
commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that
constitutes rebellion.
WHEREFORE, the Court reiterates that based on the doctrine
enunciated in People vs. Hernandez, the questioned
information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the
spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging
simple rebellion only, hence said petitioners are entitled to
bail, before final conviction, as a matter of right.
3
ENRILE v. AMIN
G.R. No. 93335 | September 13, 1990
Facts: Together with the filing in an information charging
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile as having committed rebellion
complexed with murder with RTC Quezon, government
prosecutors filed another information charging him for
violation of PD 1829 with the RTC of Makati. The second
information reads:
On December 1, 1989 at Dasmarinas Village, Makati, Metro
Manila the above named accused, having reasonable ground to
believe or suspect that Ex-Col. Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan has
committed a crime, did then and there feloniously, willfully and
knowingly obstruct, impede, frustrate and delay the apprehension
of Honasan by harboring and concealing him in his house.
On March 2, 1991, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion
a) to hold in abeyance the issuance of warrant of arrest
pending personal determination by the court of
probable cause, and
b) dismiss the case and expunge the information from
the record.
On March 16, 1990, Judge denied the Omnibus Motion on
the basis of a finding that there was a probable cause to hold
accused Enrile liable for violation of PD 1829.
On March 21, 1990, the petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and to Quash Dismiss the Information on the
grounds that:
a) The facts charged do not constitute an offense;
b) The finding of probable cause was devoid of factual
and legal basis, and
c) The pending charge of rebellion complexed with
murder and frustrated murder against Senator Enrile
as alleged conspirator of Honasan, based on their
meeting on December 1, 1989, precludes the
prosecution for the harboring or concealing the
Colonel on the same occasion under PD 1829.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner could be separately
charged for violation of PD 1829 notwithstanding the rebellion
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
Hernandez Doctrine remains binding, operating to
prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense
committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means
necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an
activity that constitutes rebellion.
In the case at bar, applying the Hernandez Doctrine, if
a person cannot be charged with the complex crime of
rebellion for the greater penalty to be applied, neither can he
be charged separately for two different offenses where one
is component element or in furtherance of rebellion.
The petitioner is presently charged with having
violated PD 1829 particularly Section 1(c) which reads:
“SECTION 1. The penalty of prison correccional in its
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
obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of
suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by
committing any of the following acts:
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any
person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or
suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal
laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and
conviction
The prosecution in this Makati case alleges that the
petitioner entertained and accommodated Honasan by giving
him food and comfort on December 1, 1989 in his house.
Knowing that Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen. Enrile
allegedly did not do anything to have him apprehended or
arrested. And because of such failure the petitioner prevented
Col. Honasan’s arrest and conviction in violation of Section 1
(c) of PD No. 1829.
The rebellion charges in Quezon City were based on
the affidavits executed by three employees of Silahis
International Hotel who stated that fugitive Col. Gregorio
“Gringo” Honasan and some 100 rebel soldiers attended the
mass and birthday party held at the residence of the petitioner
in the evening of December 1, 1989.
 In such a situation, the talking in his house in the presence
of 100 uniformed soldiers who were fully armed that they
were co-conspirators in the failed December coup.
The factual allegations supporting the rebellion
charge constitute or include the very incident which gave rise
to the charge of the violation under PD 1829.
4
 Necessarily, being in conspiracy with Honasan, petitioner’s
alleged act of harboring or concealing was for no other
purpose but in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus
constituting a component thereof. It was motivated by the
single intent or resolution to commit the crime of rebellion.
 The decisive factor is the intent or the motive.
The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is
described as a vast movement of men and a complex net of
intrigues and plot. Jurisprudence tell us that acts committed in
furtherance of the rebellion through crimes are in themselves
deemed absorbed in one single crime of rebellion.
In the case at bar, the act of harboring or concealing
Col. Honasan is clearly a mere component or ingredient of
rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It
cannot therefore be made the basis of a separate charge.
 So a defendant may not be made liable for murder as a
separate crime or in conjunction with another offense
where, as in this case, it is averred as a constitutive
ingredient of the crime.
The prosecution tries to distinguish by contending that
harboring or concealing a fugitive is punishable under a
special law while the rebellion case is based on the Revised
Penal Code; hence, prosecution under one law will not bar a
prosecution under the other. This argument is specious in
rebellion cases.
In the light of the Hernandez doctrine the prosecution’s
theory must fail. The rationale remains the same.
“All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or
general law, which are mere components or ingredients, or
committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the
crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated and charged as
separate crimes in themselves.”
Absorption doctrine may apply to common crimes in the
RPC. The attendant circumstances in the instant case,
however, constrain us to rule that the theory of absorption in
rebellion cases must not confine itself to common crimes but
also to offenses under special laws which are perpetrated in
furtherance of the political offense.
In the case at bar, it is clear that the petitioner’s alleged
act of harboring or concealing which was based on his acts of
conspiring with Honasan was committed in connection with
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
absorbed by, merged in, and identified with the crime of
rebellion punished in Articles 134 and 135 of the RPC.
Therefore, the court called the prosecution to pick
between charging between PD 1829 or rebellion. It cannot
complex the rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
murder. Neither can it prosecute him for rebellion in Quezon
City and violation of P.D 1829 in Makati. It should be noted
that there is in fact a separate prosecution for rebellion already
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. In such a
case, the independent prosecution under PD 1829 cannot
prosper.
The intent or motive is a decisive factor. If Senator Ponce
Enrile is not charged with rebellion and he harbored or
concealed Colonel Honasan simply because the latter is a
friend and former associate, the motive for the act is
completely different. But if the act is committed with political
or social motives, which is in furtherance of rebellion, then it
should be deemed to form part of the crime of rebellion
instead of being punished separately.
PEOPLE v. LOVEDIORO
G.R. No. 112235 | November 29, 1995
Facts: Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking
along Burgos St., away from the Daraga, Albay Public Market
when a man suddenly walked beside him, pulled a .45 caliber
gun from his waist, aimed the gun at the policeman’s right ear
and fired. The man who shot Lucilo had three other
companions with him, one of whom shot the fallen policeman
four times as he lay on the ground. After taking the latter’s gun,
the man and his companions boarded a tricycle and fled.
The incident was witnessed from a distance of about
nine meters by Nestor Armenta, a 25 year old welder from
Pilar, Sorsogon, who claimed that he knew both the victim and
the man who fired the fatal shot. Armenta identified the man
who fired at the deceased as Elias Lovedioro, his nephew
(appellant’s father was his first cousin) and alleged that he
knew the victim from the fact that the latter was a resident of
Bagumbayan.
Lucilo died on the same day of massive blood loss
from multiple gunshot wounds on the face, the chest, and
other parts of the body. As a result of the killing, the office of
the provincial prosecutor of Albay, on November 6, 1992 filed
an Information charging accused-appellant Elias Lovedioro of
the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the RPC. After trial,
5
the court a quo found accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
Hence, the instant appeal, in which the sole issue
interposed is that portion of trial court decision finding him
guilty of the crime of murder and not rebellion.
In his Brief, he asseverates that Armenta, a police
informer, identified him as a member of the New People’s
Army. Additionally, he contends that because the killing of
Lucilo was “a means to or in furtherance of subversive ends,”
(said killing) should-have been deemed absorbed in the crime
of rebellion under Arts. 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Solicitor General avers that the crime committed
by appellant may be considered as rebellion only if the defense
itself had conclusively proven that the motive or intent for the
killing of the policeman was for “political and subversive ends.”
Moreover, the Solicitor General contends that even if
appellant were to be convicted of rebellion, the proper
imposable penalty is not prision mayor as appellant contends,
but reclusion temporal, because E.O. No. 187 as amended by
R.A. No. 6968, the Coup D’etat Law, prescribes reclusion
temporal as the penalty imposable for individuals found guilty
as participants in a rebellion.
Issue: Whether or not Castro should be made liable for the
crime of rebellion and not murder.
Held: No.
In People v. Hernandez, the court held that political
crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as
well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve
a political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive.
If a crime usually regarded as common, like homicide, is
perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance
‘to the Government the territory of the Philippine Islands or
any part thereof,’ then it becomes stripped of its “common”
complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime of
rebellion, the former acquires the political character of the
latter.
From the foregoing, it is plainly obvious that it is not
enough that the overt acts of rebellion are duly proven. Both
purpose and overt acts are essential components of the crime.
With either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion
legally does not exist. In fact, even in cases where the act
complained of were committed simultaneously with or in the
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
accomplished for private purposes or profit, without any
political motivation, it has been held that the crime would be
separately punishable as a common crime and would not be
absorbed by the crime rebellion.
Political Motive; Burden of Proof
Political motive must be alleged in the information.
Given the rebellion provides for a lesser penalty, the burden of
proof that the act committed was impelled by a political
motive lies on the accused. Motive, being a state of mind which
the accused, better than any individual, knows. It must be
established by clear and satisfactory evidence.
It follows, therefore, that if no political motive is
established and proved, the accused should be convicted of
the common crime and not of rebellion. In cases of rebellion,
motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an
organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would
not, by and of itself, suffice.
In the case at bar, the appellant, admitted in his
extrajudicial confession to having participated in the killing of
Lucilo. It bears emphasis that nowhere in his extrajudicial
confession did appellant mention that he was a member of the
NPA. It also reveals nothing which would suggest that the
killing in which he was a participant was motivated by a
political purpose.
 The information filed against appellant, based on sworn
statements, did not contain any mention or allusion as to
the involvement of the NPA on the death of SPO3 Lucio,
even eyewitness Armenta not mention.
As the records would show, allegations relating to the
appellant’s membership in the NPA surfaced almost merely as
an afterthought, which the defense merely picked up and
followed through upon Armenta’s cross-examination,
interestingly Armenta admitted that he was forced to pinpoint
appellant as an NPA member.
Petitioner’s Allegation of Political Motive
The viability depends on his sole and unsupported
testimony. He testified that, upon the prodding of alias Alwin
and alias Samuel, he joined the NPA because of the
organization’s goals.
He claimed that his two companions shot Lucilo
because he “had offended our organization,” without,
however, specifying what the “offense” was. Appellant
6
claimed that he had been a member of the NPA for five months
before the shooting incident.
It was observed that this allegation are so general
and non-specific that they offer no explanation as to what
contribution the killing would have made to achievement of
NPA’s subversive aims. SPO3 Lucilo was never alleged to be an
informer for no acts of his were shown to have offender NPA.
In the absence of clear and satisfactory evidence
pointing to a political motive for the killing of SPO3 Jesus
Lucilo the court upheld the finding of the crime of murder.
The witness is of his blood relative, and his
testimonies were enough to convict the accused. This was
further bolstered that the witness and the appellant, in open
admission to the court, did not have grudges to each other. In
the absence of any mitigating and aggravating circumstances,
the trial court was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, together with all the accessories provided by law.
The killing was adequately proved to have been
qualified by treachery for the attack was delivered without
warning of any kind. The Court affirms the trial court’s
decision sentencing the accused guilty of Murder.
OCAMPO v. ABANDO
G.R. No. 176830 | February 11, 2014
Facts: On August 26, 2006, a mass grave was discovered by
43rd Infantry Brigade of the Philippine Army as Sitio Sapang
Daco, Barangay Kaulisihan, Inopacan, Leyte. The mass grave
contained skeletal remains of individuals believed to be victims
of “Operation Venereal Disease” launched by members of the
NPA to purge their ranks of suspected military informers.
PC/Insp. George L. Almaden of the PNPRO-8 and Army
Captain Allan Tie of 8th ID of AFP sent 12 undated letters to the
Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte through Asst. Provincial
Prosecutor Vivero. The request was for legal action of the 12
complaint-affidavits attached accusing 71 named members of
the CPP/NPA/NDFP of murder, including petitioners herein.
The letter described the discovery at the mass grave
site of 67 severely deteriorated skeletal remains believed to be
victims of Operation VD. The PNP SOCO was dispatched to
make investigation, collect and analyze remains there was also
a forensic crime analysis for DNA sampling.
Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista
September 18, 2006 Initial Specialist Report was
inconclusive with regard of the identities and the length of
time that they had been buried. Recommended further tests.
October 2, 2006 Specialist Report came up with the
names of ten possible victims after comparison and
examination based on testimonies of relatives and witnesses.
The 12 complaint-affidavits were from relatives of the
alleged victims of Operation VD. All of them swore that their
relatives had been abducted or last seen with members of the
CPP-NPA and were never seen again. They also expressed
belief that their relatives’ remains were among those
discovered.
Affidavits of Former Members
There were some who narrated that they were
former members of CPP/NPA/NDFP. According to them,
Operation VD was ordered in 1985 by the Central Committee
which petitioners Ocampo, Echanis, Baylosis and Ladlad were
then members of such committee.
According to these former members, four sub-groups
were formed to implement Operation VD:
1) Intel Group for gathering information on
suspected spies and civilians who would not
support movement.
2) Arresting Group charged with their arrests.
3) Investigation Group tasked for their questioning.
4) Execution Group the “cleaners” of confirmed
spies and civilians who would not support the
movement.
From 1985 to 1992, at least 100 people had been
abducted, hog-tied, tortured and executed by members
pursuant to the Operation VD as order by the CPP/NPA/NDFP
Central Committee of the questioned organization. These led
to the filing of the affidavits.
Prosecutor’s Action and Arrest
On the basis on the 12 letters and their attachments,
Vivero issued a subpoena, requiring petitioners to submit their
counter-affidavit and those of their witnesses.
 In a resolution on 16 February 2007, Prosecutor Vivero
recommended the filing of Information for 15 counts of
multiple murder against 54 names members of the
CPP/NPA/NDFP for the death of 15 named.
7
 Filed to RTC of Leyte presided by Judge Abando on 28
February 2007. On March 6, 2007 he found probable cause
and ordered the issuance of warrant of arrest against them
without bail.
Petitioner argued that a case for rebellion against him
and 44 others was then pending before RTC Makati. Putting
forward the political offense doctrine, petitioner Ocampo
argues that common crimes such as murder in this case are
absorbed by the crime of rebellion for it was committed as
necessary means, in connection with, and in furtherance of
rebellion.
Issue: WON the political offense doctrine can be used as a
ground to dismiss the charge against petitioners prior to
determination by trial court that the murders were committed
in furtherance of rebellion.
Held: No.
Under the political offense doctrine, common crimes
perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense, are divested
of their character as “common” offenses and assume the
political complexion of the main crime of which they are mere
ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be punished separately
from the principal offense, or complexed with the same, to
justify the imposition of a graver penalty. Any ordinary act
assumes a different nature by being absorbed in the crime of
rebellion. Thus, when a killing is committed in furtherance of
rebellion, the killing is not homicide or murder. Rather, the
killing assumes the political complexion of rebellion as its
mere ingredient and must be prosecuted and punished as
rebellion alone.
When the political offense doctrine is asserted as a
defense in the trial court, it becomes crucial for the court to
determine whether the act of killing was done in furtherance
of a political end, and for the political motive of the act to be
conclusively demonstrated.
The burden of demonstrating political motivation
must be discharged by the defense, since motive is a state of
mind which only the accused knows. The proof showing
political motivation is adduced during trial where the accused
is assured an opportunity to present evidence supporting his
defense. It is not for this Court to determine this factual
matter in the instant petitions.
As held in the case of Office of the Provincial
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
murders were indeed committed in furtherance of rebellion,
Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides the remedy,
to wit:
SECTION 14. Amendment or substitution.—A complaint or
information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave
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
leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to
the rights of the accused. However, any amendment before plea,
which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or excludes
any accused from the complaint or information, can be made only
upon motion by the prosecutor, with notice to the offended party
and with leave of court. The court shall state its reasons in resolving
the motion and copies of its order shall be furnished all parties,
especially the offended party. (n) If it appears at any time before
judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper
offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information
upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in
accordance with Section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused shall not
be placed in double jeopardy. The court may require the witnesses to
give bail for their appearance at the trial.
Hence, if it is shown that the proper charge against
petitioners should have been simple rebellion, the trial court
shall dismiss the murder charges upon the filing of the
Information for simple rebellion, as long as petitioners would
not be placed in double jeopardy.
Double jeopardy only applies when (1) a first jeopardy
attached; (2) it has been validly terminated; and (3) a second
jeopardy is for the same offense in the first.
 First, jeopardy attaches only after the accused been
acquitted or convicted, or the case has been dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent by a
competent court in a valid indictment for which the accused
has entered a valid plea on arraignment.
 If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake
has been made in charging the proper offense, the court
shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon
the filing of a new one charging the proper offense
provided that the accused shall not be in double jeopardy.
In the case at bar, an information for the crime of rebellion
as penalized under Article 134 and 135 of RPC was filed before
RTC of Makati on May 12, 2006. However petitioners were
never arraigned even before indictment for rebellion,
petitioners had already filed a petition before this Court to
seek nullification of DOJ Orders on denying motion for
inhibition for members of prosecution for lack of impartiality
and independence.
8
When the indictment was filed, petitioner filed
supplemental petitions to enjoin the prosecution, the Court
ordered dismissal of the rebellion case.
It is clear then that a first jeopardy never had a chance to
attach. Hence, the case is hereby REMANDED.
CRIMES AGAINST SEDITION
PEOPLE v. UMALI
No. L-5803. November 29, 1954
Facts: Narciso Umali, Epifanio Pasumbal, and Isidro Capino
are appealing the conviction of the CFI of Quezon finding them
guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder,
frustrated murder, arson and robbery, and sentencing them to
life imprisonment and indemnification.
On November 14, 1951 in Tiaong, Quezon, between
8:00PM and 9:00PM by armed men, a raid took place, resulting
in the burning down and complete destruction of the house of
Mayor Marcial Punzalan including its content and other houses
and wounding of a patrolman and five civilians. Some of raiders
engaged in looting, robbing and were driven away.
Shortly before that raid (one or two years before it),
Narciso Umali and Marcial Punzalan were old time friends and
belonged to the same political faction. In the general elections
of 1947, Umali campaigned for Punzalan who later was elected
Mayor of Tiaong. In the elections of 1949 it is Punzalan’s turn
to campaign for Umali resulting to his election as
Congressman.
However, these friendly relations did not endure. In
the world of Punzalan, Umali became jealous of Punzalan’s fast
growing popularity among the people of Tiaong who looked to
him instead of Umali for political guidance, leadership and
favors.
 In time, they ceased to have any dealings with each other
and they even filed mutual accusations.
According to Punzalan, in May 1950, Umali induced
about 26 of special policemen of his to flee to the mountains
and join the Huks to discredit his administration. He was later
able to contact two of his tweny-six policemen and tried to
persuade them to return to the town and to the service, but
they told him that they and their companions would not
surrender except with and through the intervention of
Congressman Umali, and so Punzalan had to seek Umali's
intervention which resulted in the surrender of the 26 men
Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista
with their firearms; thereafter Umali wanted to have their
firearms, claiming that they all belonged to him from his
guerrilla days when he was a colonel, and that after liberation
he had merely loaned them to the municipal authorities of
Tiaong to help keep peace and order; and that the refusal of
Punzalan to grant Umali's request further strained their
relations, and that thereafter Umali would not speak to him
even when they happened to meet at parties.
On September 19, 1951, Chief of Police of Punzalan
disarmed four of Umali’s men for illegal possession of firearms.
Umali then intercede for his men, and the provincial
commander sent a telegram stating that the firearms were
licensed, dismissing the complaint.
Elections of November 13, 1951
Punzalan ran for re-election. To oppose him, and to
clip his political wings and definitely blast his ambition for
continued power and influence in Tiaong, Umali picked
Epifanio Pasumbal, his trusted leader.
The pre-election campaign was intense and bitter,
even ruthless. The election was to be a test of political strength
and would determine who was who in Tiaong, — Umali or
Punzalan. There were exchanges of bad accusations and
reputes.
Punzalan beat Pasumbal by an overwhelming
majority of 2,221 votes. Naturally, Umali and Pasumbal were
keenly disappointed, and according to the evidence, adopted
measures calculated to frustrate Punzalan's victory.
Raid Narration
Amado Mendoza narrates that on morning of
November 12, he heard Umali instruct Pasumbal to contact the
Huks through Commander Abeng so that Punzalan will be
killed. Abeng and Pasumbal had a conference. It would seem
that Umali and Pasumbal had a feeling that Punzalan was going
to win in the elections the next day, and that his death was the
surest way to eliminate him from the electoral fight.
 He saw armed men in the lanzones grove just across the
street from their house, belonging to the father of Umali,
and among those men they saw Congressman Umali
holding a revolver, in the company of Huk Commander
Torio and about 20 armed men. Afterwards they saw Umali
and his companions leave in the direction of Taguan, by way
of the railroad tracks. The raid was well-planned even with
a diversionary measure.
9
Umali’s Version of Facts. – Respondent said that he did not see
the two men until they arrived about midnight when the Army
reinforcements from Lucena passed by on their way to Tiaong.
The natural and logical reaction on the part of Umali
and Pasumbal would have been to rush to Tiaong, see what
had really happened and then render help and give succor to
the stricken residents, including their own relatives. It will be
remembered that the houses of the fathers of Umali and
Pasumbal were in Tiaong and their parents and relatives were
residing there. And yet, instead of following a natural impulse
and urge to go to Tiaong, they fled in the opposite direction
towards Candelaria.
Fortunately, however, and apparently unknown to
the attackers and those who designed the raid, at six o'clock
that morning of November 14th Punzalan and his Chief of
Police had left Tiaong to go to Lucena, the capital, to report the
results of the election to the Governor.
Issue: WON the raid conducted through the help of the Huk
will absorb the crimes of multiple murder, frustrated murder,
arson and robbery. OR Whether or not there is such a complex
crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder,
arson and robbery.
Held: The Court is convinced that the principal and main,
though not necessarily the most serious, crime committed
here was not rebellion but rather that of sedition.
The purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in
rising publicly and taking up arms was not exactly against the
Government and for the purpose of doing the things defined
in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code under rebellion. The
raiders did not even attack the Presidencia, the seat of local
Government. Rather, the object was to attain by means of
force, intimidation, etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of
hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public
official, namely, Punzalan who was then Mayor of Tiaong.
Under Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code this was sufficient
to constitute sedition.
As regards the crime of robbery with which
appellants were charged and of which they were convicted,
the Court are also of the opinion that it was not one of the
purposes of the raid, which was mainly to kidnap or kill
Punzalan and destroy his house. The robberies were actually
committed by only some of the raiders, presumably dissidents,
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
burning of the three houses, the articles being intended
presumably to replenish the supplies of the dissidents in the
mountains. For these robberies, only those who actually took
part therein are responsible, and not the three appellants
herein.
With respect to the crime of multiple frustrated
murder, while the assault upon policeman Pedro Lacorte with
a hand grenade causing him injuries resulting in his blindness
in one eye, may be regarded as frustrated murder; the
wounding of Ortega, Aselo, Rivano, Garcia and Lector should
be considered as mere physical injuries.
SEDITION DID NOT ABSORB OTHER COMMON CRIMES
The crimes committed are, therefore, those of
sedition, multiple murder, arson, frustrated murder and
physical injuries. The killing may, however, be qualified by
treachery, the raiders using firearms against which the victims
were defenseless, with the aggravating circumstance of abuse
of superior strength. The three murders may be punished with
the penalty of death. However, because of lack of the
necessary votes, the penalty should be life imprisonment.
In conclusion, we find appellants guilty of sedition,
multiple murder, arson, frustrated murder and physical
injuries. It shall be understood, however, that pursuant to the
provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code the duration
of all penalties shall not exceed 40 years.
PEOPLE v. CABRERA
G.R. No. 17748 | March 4, 1922
Facts: On December 13, 1920, policemen of the city of
Manila arrested a woman who was a member of the household
of a Constabulary soldier stationed at the Santa Lucia Barracks
in this city. The arrest of the woman was considered by some
of the Constabulary soldiers at Santa Lucia Barracks as an
outrage committed by the policemen, and it instantly gave rise
to friction between members of the Manila police department
and members of the Philippine Constabulary.
The next day, December 14, at about sunset, a
policeman named Artemio Mojica posted on Calle Real, in the
District of Intramuros, city of Manila, had an encounter with
various Constabulary soldiers which resulted in the shooting of
private Macasina of the Constabulary. Private Macasinag was
seriously, and, as afterwards appeared, mortally wounded.
The encounter between policeman Mojica and other
companions of the Manila police force and private Macasinag
10
and other companions of the Constabulary, with its grave
consequences for a Constabulary soldier, engendered a deep
feeling of resentment on the part of the soldiers at Santa Lucia
Barracks. This resentment was soon converted into a desire
for revenge against the police force of the city of Manila. The
officers of the Constabulary appear to have been aware of the
state of excitement among the soldiers at Santa Lucia Barracks
because almost immediately after the shooting of private
Macasinag, Captain Page, the commanding officer of the
barracks, increased the number of guards, and confined all the
soldiers in the barracks.
During the afternoon of the next day, December 15,
1920, a rumor spread among the soldiers in Santa Lucia
Barracks to the effect that policeman Mojica was allowed to
continue on duty on the streets of Intramuros and that private
Macasinag had died as a consequence of the shot he received
the night before. This rumor contributed in no small degree in
precipitating a movement for reprisal by the Constabulary
soldiers against the policemen.
At about 7 o’clock in the evening of the same day,
corporal Ingles of the Fourth Company approached Private
Nicolas Torio who was then the man in charge of quarters, and
asked him to let the soldiers out through the window of the
quarters of the Fourth Company. Private Torio was easily
persuaded to permit Private Francisco Garcia of the Second
Company to saw out the window bars of the quarters in his
charge, and to allow soldiers to escape through the window
with rifles and ammunition under the command of their
sergeants and corporals. When outside of the quarters, these
soldiers divided into groups for attack upon the city police
force.
One platoon of Constabulary soldiers apparently
numbering about ten or twelve, on Calle Real, Intramuros fired
in the direction of the intersection of Calles Real and Cabildo
where an American policeman named Driskill was stationed,
and was talking with a friend named Jacumin, a field clerk in
the United States Army. These two men were shot and died
soon afterwards. To the credit of policeman Driskill be it said,
that although in a dying condition and in the face of
overwhelming odds, he valiantly returned the fire with his
revolver. Jacumin was killed notwithstanding that in response
to the command of the Constabulary, "Hands up!" he elevated
both arms.
A street car happened to stop at this time at the
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
passengers in the car were innocent passersby, the
Constabulary squad fired a volley into the car, killing instantly
the passenger named Victor de Torres and gravely wounding
three other civilian passengers, Gregorio Cailles, Vicente
Antonio, and Mariano Cortes. Father Jose Tahon, a priest of the
Cathedral of Manila, proved himself of here on this occasion
for, against the command of the Constabulary, he persisted in
persuading them to cease firing and advanced in order that he
might administer spiritual aid to those who had been
wounded.
The firing on Calle Real did not end at that time. Some
minutes later, Captain William E. Wichman, assistant chief of
police of the city of Manila, riding in a motorcycle driven by
policeman Saplala, arrived at the corner of Calles Real and
Magallanes in Intramuros, and a volley of shots by
Constabulary soldiers resulted in the instantaneous death of
Captain Wichman and the death shortly afterwards of
patrolman Saplala.
About the same time, a police patrol came from the
Meisic police station. When it was on Calle Real near Cabildo,
in Intramuros, it was fire upon by Constabulary soldiers who
had stationed themselves in the courtyard of the San Agustin
Church. This attack resulted in the death of patrolmen Trogue
and Sison.
Another platoon of the Constabulary, between thirty
and forty in number, had, in the meantime, arranged
themselves in a firing line on the Sunken Gardens on the east
side of Calle General Luna opposite the Aquarium. From this
advantageous position the Constabulary fired upon the
motorcycle occupied by sergeant Armada and driven by
policeman Policarpio who with companions were passing
along Calle General Luna in front of the Aquarium going in the
direction of Calle Real, Intramuros. As a result of the shooting,
the driver of the motorcycle, policeman Policarpio, was
mortally wounded. This same platoon of Constabulary soldiers
fired several volleys indiscriminately into the Luneta police
station, and the office of the secret service of the city of Manila
across Calles General Luna and Padre Burgos, but fortunately
no one was injured.
General Rafael Crame, Chief of the Constabulary, and
Captain Page, commanding officer of the Santa Lucia Barracks,
rounded up some of the soldiers in the streets of Manila, and
other soldiers one after another returned to the Barracks
where they were disarmed. No list of the names of these
soldiers was, however, made.
11
In the morning of the next day, December 16, 1920,
Colonel Lucien R. Sweet of the Constabulary, in compliance
with orders from General Crame, and assisted by other
Constabulary officers, and later by the fiscals of the city of
Manila, commenced an investigation of the events of the night
before. He first ordered that all the soldiers in Santa Lucia
Barracks, at that time numbering some one hundred and
eighty, be assembled on the parade grounds, and when this
was done, the soldiers were separated into their respective
companies. Then Colonel Sweet, speaking in English, with the
assistance of Captain Silvino Gallardo, who interpreted his
remarks into Tagalog, made two brief statements. The first
was, in effect: "Those of you who for one reason or another
left the Barracks last night, may step forward." Responding to
this order, nearly one hundred moved to the front. Thereupon,
Colonel Sweet said to these: "For the good of the body to
which you belong, of your companions, and of yourselves,
those who participated in the riot last night may take another
step forward." Seventy-three soldiers then advanced a step.
The names of four others who took part but who were not
present were taken down by Captain Gallardo.
The defendants were charged in one information filed
in the CFI of the city of Manila with the crime of sedition, and
in another information filed in the same court, with the crimes
of murder and serious physical injuries. The two cases were
tried separately before different judges of first instance. In the
sedition case, which came on for trial first, all of the accused,
with the exception of eight, namely, Francisco Ingles, Juan
Noromor, P. E. Vallado, Dionisio Verdadero, Francisco Garcia,
Benigno Tagavilla, Felix Lamsing and Paciano Cana pleaded
guilty, but later, after the first witness for the prosecution had
testified, the accused who had pleaded guilty were permitted,
with the consent of the court, to substitute therefor the plea
of not guilty. In the murder case, all entered a plea of not
guilty. On petition of the defense, two assessors were chosen
to sit with the judge.
The attorneys for the accused presented three
defenses. The first defense was that of double-jeopardy; the
second was based on the contention that the written
statements Exhibits C to C-76 were not freely and voluntarily
made by the defendants; and the third defense, in favor of the
defendants Vicente Casimiro, Juan Noromor, Salvador
Gregorio, Paciano Cana, Juan Abarquez, Mariano Garcia, Felix
Liron, Bonifacio Eugnio, Patricio Bello, Baldomero Rodriguez,
Roberto Palabay, Roque Ebol, Ildefonso de la Cruz, Cipriano
Manresa ‘18-19
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
Criminal Law II | Atty. Paolo Evangelista
Lizardo, Franciso Garcia, Genaro Elayda, Hilario Hibalar,
Primitivo E. Vallado, Maximo Perlas, and Benigno Tagavilla,
was to the effect that they did not take part in the riot.
Issue: WON the offenses charged in the two informations
constitutes double-jeopardy.
WON there is a conspiracy between the accused.
Held: (1) No. (2) Yes.
THE DEFENSE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
The constitutional inhibition in the Philippine Bill of
Rights is "that no person for the same offense shall twice be
put in jeopardy of punishment."
Sedition is not the same offense as murder. Sedition
is a crime against public order; murder is a crime against
persons. Sedition is a crime directed against the existence of
the State, the Authority of the government, and the general
public tranquillity; murder is a crime directed against the lives
of individuals. (U.S. v. Abad [1902], Phil., 437.) Sedition in its
more general sense is the raising of commotions or
disturbances in the state; murder at common law is where a
person of sound mind and discretion unlawfully kills any
human being, in the peace of the sovereign, with malice
aforethought, express or implied.
The offenses charged in the two informations for
sedition and murder are perfectly distinct in point of law
however nearly they may be connected in point of fact. Not
alone are the offenses eo nomine different, but the allegations
in the body of the informations are different. The gist of the
information for sedition is the public and tumultuous uprising
of the constabulary in order to attain by force and outside of
legal methods the object of inflicting an act of hate and
revenge upon the persons of the police force of the city of
Manila by firing at them in several places in the city of Manila;
the gist of the information in the murder case is that the
Constabulary, conspiring together illegally and criminally killed
eight persons and gravely wounded three others. The crimes
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
12
constitute the offense charged in the second information. The
defendants may have been tried for the same act or acts; they
have not been put in jeopardy for the same offense.
The Court ruled that the trial court did not err in not
allowing the defense of double jeopardy.
THE CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE ACCUSED
It is primary rule that if two or more persons combine
to perform a criminal act, each is responsible for all the acts
of the others done in furtherance of the common design; and
"the result is the same if the act is divided into parts and each
person proceeds with this part unaided."
Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of
indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances which vary
according to the purposes to be accomplished. If it be proved
that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, one
performing one part and another part of the same, so as to
complete it, with a view to the attainment of that same object,
one will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged
in a conspiracy to effect that object.
In the case at bar, it is incontestable that all of the
defendants were imbued with the same purpose, which was
to avenge themselves on the police force of the city of
Manila. A common feeling of resentment animated all. A
common plan evolved from their military training was
followed.
The effort to lead the court into the realm of
psychology and metaphysics is unavailing in the face of
actualities. The existence of a joint assent may be reasonably
inferred from the facts proved. Not alone are the men who
fired the fatal shots responsible, not alone are the men who
admit firing their carbines responsible, but all, having united
to further a common design of hate and vengeance, are
responsible for the legal consequences therefor.
The Court ruled that the trial court did not err in
declaring that there was a conspiracy between the accused.
Manresa ‘18-19