People vs Lagnason

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4974               May 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOSE LAVA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

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

G.R. No. L-4975               May 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LAMBERTO MAGBOO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

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

G.R. No. L-4976               May 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.SIMEON G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

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

G.R. No. L-4977               May 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.HONOFRE MANGILA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

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

G.R. No. L-4978               May 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MAGNO PONTILLERA BUENO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

Office of the Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro and Solicitor Jorge Coquia for plaintiff-appellee.Recto Law Office, Juan T. David, Crispin D. Baizas and Delgado, Flores, Macapagal and Dizon for defendant-appellant Jose Lava.Cipriano C. Manansala for defendants-appellants Federico Maclang, Lamberto Magboo, Honofre D. Magila, Marcos Medina, Cenon Bungay and Magno P. Bueno.R. M. Paterno for defendants-appellants Marciano de Leon and Cesareo Torres.Irineo M. Cabrera for defendant-appellant Iluminada Calonje.Salonga, Ordoñez and Associates for defendants-appellants Angel Baking and Arturo Baking.Jose P. Laurel Law Office for defendant-appellant Simeon Rodriguez.J. Antonio Araneta, Claudio Teehankee and Manuel O. Chan for defendant-appellant Federico Bautista.Ismael T. Torres for defendant-appellant Felipe Engreso.Meliton Soliman for defendant-appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr.

 

ZALDIVAR, J.:

          These are appeals from the joint decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in its Criminal Cases Nos. 14071, 14082, 14270, 14315 and 14344.

          In Criminal Case No. 14071, the defendants were Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz y Adriano, Rosario C. viuda de Santos and Angel Baking. The appeal from the decision in this case is now in G.R. No. L-4974 before this Court.

          In Criminal Case No. 14082, the defendants were Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Sr., Esteban Gonzales y la Torre, Marcos Medina, Cesario Torres, Rosenda Canlas Reyes, and Arturo Baking y Calma. The appeal from the decision in this case is now in G.R. No. L-4975 before this Court.

          In Criminal Case No. 14270, the defendants were Simeon Gutierrez y Rodriguez, Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez, and Victorina Rodriguez y Gutierrez, and Marciano de Leon. The appeal from the decision in this case is now in G.R. No. L-4976 before this Court.

          In Criminal Case No. 14315, the defendants were Honofre D. Mangila and Cenon Bungay y Bagtas. The appeal from the decision in this case is now in G.R. No. L-4977 before this Court.

          In Criminal Case No. 14344 the defendants were Magno Pontillera Bueno, Nicanor Capalad, Rosalina Quizon, Pedro Vicencio, Julia Mesina, Felipe Engreso, Elpidio Acuño Adime, Josefina Adelan y Abusejo, Conrado Domingo, Aurora Garcia, and Naty Cruz. The appeal from the decision in this case is now in G.R. No. L-4978 before this Court.

          All the above-named defendants were charged with having committed the complex crime of rebellion with murders and arsons under an identical information, filed in each of the five cases, which reads as follows: .

          That on or about the 6th day of May, 1946, and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto and continuously up to the present time, in the City of Manila, the seat of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines which the herein accused have intended to overthrow, and the place they have chosen for that purpose as the nerve center of all their rebellious activities in the different parts of the country, the said accused being then high ranking officers or otherwise members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (PKP) of which the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan" (HMB) otherwise or formerly known as the Hukbalahap (Huks), is its armed forces, having come to an agreement and decided to commit the crime of rebellion, and therefore, conspiring and confederating together, acting with many more others whose whereabouts and identities are still unknown up to the filing of this information, and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously promote, maintain, cause, direct and/or command the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB) or the Hukbalahaps (Huks) to rise publicly and take arms against the Government or otherwise participate therein for the purpose of overthrowing the same, as in fact the said Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan or Hukbalahaps (Huks) have risen publicly and taken arms against the Government, by then and there making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army detachments, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, by then and there committing wanton acts of murder, spoilage, looting, arson, planned destruction of private and public buildings, to create and spread terrorism in order to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, as follows, to wit:

(1) On May 6, 1946, the 10th MPC Co. led by First Lt. Mamerto Lorenzo while on patrol duty in the barrio of Santa Monica, Aliaga, Nueva Ecija, was with evident premeditation on the part of the huks ambushed and treacherously attacked by a band of well-armed dissidents or rebels. Ten enlisted men of the MP company were killed. First Lt. Mamerto Lorenzo was captured and beheaded by the rebels.

(2) On August 6, 1946, a group of more than 30 Huks under the leadership of Salvador Nolasco armed with guns of different calibers raided the municipal building of Majayjay, Laguna. They were able to get one Garand, one carbine, one Thompson GMG, and one pistol. They also took one typewriter and stationery (NR Laguna, dated Sept. 2, 1946).

(3) On April 10, 1947, 14 EM under the command of Lt. Pablo C. Cruz, while on their way to investigate a holdup in the barrio of San Miguel na Munti, Talavera, Nueva Ecija were with evident premeditation and treachery on the part of the Huks ambushed and fired upon by Huks armed with 30-caliber rifles, machine guns, and grenades. Lt. Pablo Cruz and Pvt. Santiago Mercado were killed and 6 others were wounded.

(4) On May 9, 1947, Huks numbering around 100 under Lomboy and Liwayway raided the town proper of Laur and forced Municipal Treasurer Jose A. Viloria to open the treasury safe and obtained therefrom more than P600. Policeman Fermin

Sanchez was taken by the bandits with one Springfield rifle. Bandits robbed the towns people of their money, personal belongings, rice and carabaos (WITR May 10, 1947). .

(5) On August 19, 1947, Capt. Jose Gamboa, First Lt. Celestino Tiansec, and Second Lt. Marciano Lising, all from the 115th Co., while riding in a jeep following an armored car, were treacherously fired upon by a group of about 100 dissidents armed with automatic rifles, Thompsons, and Garands and lined up on both sides of Highway No. 5 near the cemetery of San Miguel, Bulacan. First Lt. Celestino Tiansec and Second Lt. Marciano Lising were killed.

(6) In or about the month of June, 1946, Alejandro Viernes, alias Stalin, commander of Joint Forces No. 108 with about 180 men, entered the town of Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, and raised their Huk flag for more than twenty-four hours. The Municipal officials did not offer any resistance because of the superiority in number of the Huks. After demanding from the civilians foodstuffs such as rice, chickens, goats, and carabaos, they left the town, admonishing the civilians always to support the Huk organization. The MP forces under Capt. Ponciano Hanili, S-3, Capt. Federico C. Olares, then Asst. S-3, of Nueva Ecija province, proceeded to Pantabangan with forces of the 112th MP Co. under Capt. Nicanor Garcia, to verify the information, but were not able to contact the dissidents at Pantabangan. They proceeded to the barrio of Marikit, between Pantabangan and Laur, where they engaged some dissidents. When our forces were on their way home, they were pocketed by the dissidents at the zigzag road, but owing to the initiative of our forces, they were able to extricate themselves from their precarious position and were able to fire their mortars and Cal. 50 and .30 machineguns. Investigations made on the field of battle showed that the Huks suffered heavy casualties which was verified later to have been seven cart loads of dead men. (Special Report, PC Nueva Ecija, dated February 23, 1948.)

(7) Mrs. Aurora Aragon Quezon and party were with evident premeditation and treachery on the part of the Huks ambushed at about 10:30, 28 April 49 by an undetermined number of dissidents under Commanders Viernes, Marzan, Lupo and Mulong at kilometer 62, barrio Salubsob, Bongabong, Nueva Ecija. PC escort exchanged fire with the dissidents. Patrol of the First Heavy Weapons Company, 1st PC Battalion was dispatched to reinforce the PC escort. The following persons were killed: Mrs. Quezon, Baby Quezon, Mayor P. Bernardo, Major P. San Agustin, A. San Agustin, Lt. Lasam, Philip Buencamino III, and several soldiers. General Jalandoni and Capt. Manalang sustained slight wounds.

(8) On August 25, 1950, Camp Macabulos, Tarlac, Tarlac was attacked, raided and set fire to and among the casualties therein were Major D. E. Orlino, Capt. T. D. Cruz, Lt. G. T. Manawis, Lt. C. N. Tan, Lt. Eusebio Cabute, Sgt. Isabelo Vargas, Sgt. Bernardo Cadoy, Sgt. Bienvenido Bugay, Sgt. Samuel Lopez, Cpl. Vicente Awitan, Cpl. Ruiz Ponce, Cpl. Eugenio Ruelra, Pvt. Agustin Balatbat, Saturnino Guarin, E. Cabanban, Antonio Monte, Felix Quirin, Gregoria Balcoco, Jose Mojica, Cornelio Melegan, Carlos Bojade, Rodrigo Espejo and Rosario Sotto, a Red Cross nurse.

          Counsel for defendants Jose Lava and Federico Bautista filed a motion to quash the information against them upon the grounds that the information did not conform to the prescribed form, that it charged the defendants with more than one offense, and that the court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. Also filed was a petition for provisional liberty under bail of 14 of the defendants, upon the grounds that (1) the evidence of guilt was not strong and (2) the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus under Proclamation No. 210, dated October 22, 1950, by the President of the Philippines was unconstitutional. Both motion and petition were denied by the trial court in an order dated November 1, 1950.

          Upon agreement of the prosecution and the defense, and with the conformity of all the defendants, the five cases were tried jointly, with the understanding that each defendant could present his/her separate and independent defenses. Notwithstanding the fact that several witnesses had already testified in the first two cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 14071 and 14082) at the time the other three cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 14270, 14315 and 14344) were filed, the defendants in the latter three cases expressed their conformity to a joint trial with the first two cases and agreed that the evidence already taken in the first two cases be reproduced in the latter three cases.

          While the joint trial was being held, the prosecution, after a reinvestigation of the cases, moved that the case with respect to defendant Julia Mesina be dismissed upon the ground of insufficiency of evidence. After the trial and before the cases were submitted for decision, the prosecution also moved for the dismissal of the case against defendant Rosenda Canlas Reyes upon the ground that the evidence on record was not sufficient to support her conviction. Both motions were granted by the trial court.

          After the joint trial, the trial court rendered a joint decision in the five cases, dated May 11, 1951.

          In Criminal Case No. 14071, the court found defendants FEDERICO MACLANG alias Eto alias O. Beria aliasOlibas alias Mariano Cruz alias Ambrosio Reyes alias Manuel Santos; RAMON ESPIRITU alias Johnny alias Ka Johnny; ILUMINADA CALONJE alias Salome Cruz alias Luming; JOSE LAVA alias Harry alias Felix Cruz aliasGaston Silayan alias Gaston alias Gregorio Santayana alias Greg alias Gavino; FEDERICO M. BAUTISTA aliasFreddie alias Fred; ANGEL BAKING alias Angel alias Boriz alias Bayan; and ROSARIO VDA. DE SANTOS aliasCharing, guilty as principals of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies, and pursuant to Article 248, subsections 1 and 3 of the Revised Penal Code, in connection with its Article 48, sentenced defendants Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu and Iluminada Calonje to the capital penalty of death; and defendants Jose Lava, Federico M. Bautista, Angel Baking, and Rosario C. Vda de Santos to reclusion perpetua. The defendants were also ordered to pay the costs in this case.

          In imposing the death penalty upon Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu and Iluminada Calonje, the court took into consideration not only the very nature of the crime committed but also the aggravating circumstance that the said three defendants secured the aid of persons under 15 years of age in the commission of the crime.

          In Criminal Case No. 14082, the court found defendants CESAREO TORRES alias Cesareo Yacat, alias Leoalias Leodones; ARTURO BAKING Y CALMA alias Arturo C. Baking alias A. C. Baking alias Arturo Calma Bakingalias Eduardo Santos, and MARCOS MEDINA alias Hiwara guilty as principals of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies and sentenced the said defendants to reclusion perpetua. The court also found defendants LAMBERTO MAGBOO alias Berting alias Eddie and NICANOR RAZON, SR., alias Elias Ruvi, as accomplice in the commission of the said crime and were sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

          The court did not find sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the defendant ESTEBAN GONZALES Y LA TORRE, alias Esteban La Torre Gonzales, either as principal or accomplice in the commission of the said crime. The court, however, found him guilty as member of the Communist Party in the Philippines, which is an illegal association, and pursuant to Article 147 of the Revised Penal Code, the said defendant was sentenced to four (4) months of arresto mayor. All the defendants were ordered to pay costs.

          In Criminal Case No. 14270, the court found defendants SIMEON GUTIERREZ Y RODRIGUEZ alias Simeon Rodriguez alias Sammy alias S. G. R. alias Lakindanum; MARClANO DE LEON Y ESPIRITU alias Marciano E. de Leon alias Marcial alias Mar, guilty as principals in the commission of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies; and JULITA RODRIGUEZ Y GUTIERREZ alias Judith alias Juling alias Juliet aliasJulie, as accomplice in the commission of the said crime, and sentenced defendants Simeon Gutierrez y Rodriguez, and Marciano de Leon y Espiritu to reclusion perpetua; and defendant Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez to an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. These defendants were ordered to pay the costs.

          The court acquitted defendant VICTORINA RODRIGUEZ Y GUTIERREZ alias Vicky alias Toring.

          In Criminal Case No. 14315, the court found defendants CENON BUNGAY Y BAGTAS alias Ruping aliasCommander Ruping alias Bagtas and HONOFRE D. MANGILA alias Onofre Mangila alias Tommy alias Miller guilty as principals of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies, and pursuant to the provision of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code the said defendant Cenon Bungay y Bagtas and Honofre D. Mangila were sentenced to death. In arriving at this decision the court took into consideration the gravity of their participation in the said complex crime, the first being a Huk squadron commander, who led and took part in several raids and ambuscades conducted by the HMB and caused the killing of Major Leopoldo Alicbusan of the PC Detachment at San Pablo City, Laguna, and the second (Mangila) being a member of the powerful Central Committee of the Communist Party in the Philippines, which elects the Politburo members. The said defendants were also ordered to pay the costs.

          In Criminal Case No. 14344, the court found defendant MAGNO PONTILLERA BUENO alias Magno Buenoalias Mamerto Banyaga alias Narding, guilty as principal of the

complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies and sentenced the said defendant to death. The court, likewise found defendants ROSALINA V. QUIZON alias Regina Quiambao; PEDRO VICENCIO alias Pedring; FELIPE ENGRESO alias Ipe; JOSEFINO ADELAN Y ABUSEJO alias Fely; ELPIDIO ACUÑO ADIME alias Rolly, alias Rolly Enriquez alias Rol aliasPidiong, and NATY CRUZ alias Natie alias Naty alias Spring, and CONRADO DOMINGO alias Adong guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplices in the commission of the said crime and sentenced the said Rosalina Quizon and Pedro Vicencio to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal as maximum; and Felipe Engreso, Josefina Adelan and Conrado Domingo to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayoras maximum. The last three accused were declared entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, they being under 18 years of age.

          With respect to defendants Elpidio Acuño Adime and Naty Cruz, they being under 16 years of age, further proceedings were suspended and pursuant to the provision of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, the court ordered that the said Elpidio Acuño Adime be committed to the Boys' Training School and Naty Cruz to the Girls' Training School at Mandaluyong, Rizal under the custody and supervision of the Commissioner of Social Welfare or his authorized representatives until they reach the age of majority or until further orders of the court. The Commissioner of Social Welfare was directed to submit to the court every four months a written report on the good or bad conduct of the said minors, on the moral and intellectual progress made by them during the period of their confinement in said institutions.

          The court acquitted defendants NICANOR CAPALAD alias Canor and AURORA GARCIA alias Laring.

          All the defendants except Nicanor Capalad and Aurora Garcia were ordered to pay the costs.

          In imposing the capital penalty on Magno Pontillera Bueno the Court took into account not only his being a member of the powerful Central Committee of the Communist Party jointly with Federico Maclang and Honofre Mangila but also his being an instructor on Military Tactics in the "Stalin University", the military training school for Huks in the mountains.

          The rights to file a civil action to recover indemnity for the death of the victims of the murders specifically referred to in these cases were reserved to the heirs of the said victims.

          Thus, of the original 31 defendants in these five criminal cases, five were acquitted, namely: Julia Mesina, Rosenda Canlas Reyes, Victorina Rodriguez y Gutierrez, Nicanor Capalad and Aurora Garcia. Of the 26 who were convicted, all appealed to this Court except defendant Esteban Gonzales la Torre. Later, defendants Rosalina Quizon, Elpidio Acuño Adime, Josefina Adelan Abusejo, Conrado Domingo and Naty Cruz withdrew their appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, defendants Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez and Magno Pontillera Bueno died. The appeals now before this Court, therefore, involve only 18 defendants, namely: Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu,

Salome Cruz, Rosario Vda. de Santos, Angel Baking, Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Marcos Medina, Cesareo Torres, Arturo Baking, Simeon G. Rodriguez, Marciano de Leon, Honofre Mangila, Cenon Bungay, Pedro Vicencio, and Felipe Engreso.

          Upon petition by the Deputy Chief, Military Intelligence Service (MIS) of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, this Court, by order of March 7, 1952, appointed the MIS the custodian of the exhibits and documents that were presented as evidence in these five criminal cases before the trial court. This step was taken because those documents and exhibits were needed also as evidence in other courts in the prosecution of other members of the HMB (Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan). Later, by order of April 14, 1955, this Court appointed the Staff Judge Advocate of the Philippine Constabulary the custodian of the same documents and exhibits. Those documents and exhibits were kept at the headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary at Camp Crame, Quezon City. On September 10, 1958 the headquarters of the PC was destroyed by fire, and all those documents and exhibits were burned. Upon a petition for the reconstitution of the said documents and exhibits, this Court appointed Deputy Clerk of Court Bienvenido Ejercito as Commissioner to receive evidence for the reconstitution of those documents and exhibits. The Commissioner, after due hearing, submitted his report, dated October 6, 1959, recommending that the documents and exhibits that were burned be declared reconstituted by the photostatic copies of the originals of those documents and exhibits. The Commissioner stated in his report that those photostatic copies were duly identified during the hearings on the reconstitution. Over the objection of counsels for the defendants-appellants, this Court approved the report of the Commissioner.

          Counsels for the appellants were allowed by the Court all the time that they needed to prepare the briefs for the appellants. The last brief for the appellants was filed on January 22, 1963. The Solicitor General filed the brief for the appellee (People of the Philippines) on June 29, 1963. These appeals were set for hearing on oral argument on August 28, 1963. On that date counsel for some of the defendants-appellants argued the case for their clients; and counsels for other defendants-appellants were given a period of 20 days to submit a memorandum in lieu of oral argument. The Solicitor General was likewise granted leave to submit a reply memorandum within 20 days from the receipt of the copies of the appellants' memoranda. Upon the filing of the memoranda these cases were considered submitted for decision.

          These cases have been pending for decision in this Court since October, 1963, and it would seem that this Court has not acted with dispatch in the disposition of these cases. It must be known, however, that this Court has been swamped with cases appealed from the lower courts and from administrative bodies and officials, as provided by law, and despite the arduous labors by the members of this Court the docket of this Court has been, and still is, clogged. There are numerous criminal cases appealed to this Court ahead of these five cases. Certainly the appellants in those earlier appealed criminal cases deserve the same concern from this Court that the appellants in these five cases expect for themselves. The record of these five cases, consisting of the "rollos", the transcript of the stenographic notes taken during the trial and the documentary exhibits, is so voluminous that when piled vertically it would stand almost three feet high. The record has to be meticulously examined and studied by the members of this Court, working as a collegiate body. In deciding cases, this Court inclines more to careful study and deliberation rather than to dispatch.

Existence and activities of the CPP and HMB

          We have thoroughly examined the testimonial and documentary evidence in the present cases, and We find it conclusively proved, as did the lower court, that as of the year 1950 when elements of the police and armed forces of the Government arrested the defendants in these five cases there was already a nationwide organization of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), and that said party had a well-organized plan to overthrow the Philippine Government by armed struggle and to establish in the Philippines a communist form of government similar to that of Soviet Russia and Red China. The Communist Party of the Philippines had as its military arm the organization known as the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan" (HMB), otherwise or formerly known as the Hukbalahaps (Huks). It is established that the rebellious activities of the HMB, and the commission of common crimes in different parts of the country by the HMB, were directed by the Communist Party of the Philippines through its Politburo (PB) and/or Secretariat (SEC). The Politburo and/or the Secretariat gave orders to the field through its general headquarters (GHQ) and its regional commands (RECOS), and reports to the Politburo and/or Secretariat were made regarding the activities of the HMB, giving accounts of the sorties or ambushes and attacks against elements of the police, the Philippine Constabulary and the army, and of killings, lootings and destruction's of property. It is also established that the plan of the Communist Party was not only to overthrow the Philippine Government but also to kill officials of the Government and private individuals who refused to cooperate with the rebels, and orders to this effect were transmitted to the HMB.

          Among the documentary evidence presented during the trial is the Constitution of the Communist Party of the Philippines, one of the documents seized in one of the raids when some of the appellant were arrested. In this document it is shown that the CPP has a National Congress (NC) which is the highest Authority in the party. The National Congress formulates the policies of the party, and determines the functions of the party and of the standing committees; it renders decisions on all problems regarding organizations and tactics, and on appeals brought before it; and it elects the members of the Central Committee (CC). The Central Committee, which is the highest authority when the National Congress is not in session, enforces the Constitution, implements the policies formulated by the National Congress, promulgates Rules and regulations, supervises all political and organizational work of the party, takes charge of financial matters and renders an accounting thereof to the National Congress, and elects the General Secretary (SEC) and all the members of the Politburo. The Politburo (PB) is the real executive body of the party, and is responsible for the execution of the powers and duties of the Central Committee when the latter is not in session. The General Secretary and the Politburo are responsible to the Central Committee for all their decisions and actions. Then there are departments, bureaus, committees and other organizational units. There is the National Education Department (NED), the educational Department (ED), the Organization Bureau (OB), the Organizational Department (OD), the District Organization Committee (DOC) the Peasants' Organization (PO), the Trade Union Department (TUD), the Sanggunian Tanggulang Baryo (STB), the Military Committee (MC), the General Headquarters (GHQ), the Regional Command (RECO), the Field Command (FC), the Battalion (BN), the Company, (CO), the Platoon (PLN), and the Squad (SQD). There is also the National Finance Committee (NFC) in charge of the financial matters of the Party, the RECO Finance Committee (RFC), the District Finance Committee (DFC), the Field Command Supply Officer (FC-G-4), the

Battalion Supply Officer (Bn-G-4), the Company Supply Officer (Co-G-4), the Platoon Supply Officer (Pln-S-4), the National Courier Division (NCD), the Reco Courier Division (RCB), the Central Post (CP), and Field Command Courier (FC-Courier).

          The Secretariat provisionally assumed the functions of the GHQ which was abolished by the Politburo in its conference in January 1950. The Secretariat alone has final authority to impose the death penalty in court martial cases where SECCOM (National Committee) cadres are involved. Several SEC transmissions to the Politburo members assigned to regional commands indicate that the Secretariat discussed plans of attack by the HMB, distributes forces, and supplies intelligence information.

          There is the National Courier (or Communication) Division (NCD), which is in charge of the communication system of the CPP, and the distribution of supplies to the different regional commands in the field. There is a Special Warfare Division, in charge of operating technological warfare against the enemy such as the use of homemade bombs, molotov cocktails, land mine traps, etc. There is the Technical Group (TG) which attends to the manufacture of homemade firearms and other weapons. This group includes chemists and engineers. Then there is the National Intelligence Division, in charge of gathering military intelligence, as well as political and economic intelligence.

          For purposes of regional commands, the Philippines was divided geographically into ten regions in order to facilitate the political, military, and economic administration by the Communist Party of the Philippines. Those regional commands are as follows: .

          RECO 1 — Nueva Ecija, Pangasinan and lower Mt. Province.

          RECO 2 — Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales and Bataan.

          RECO 3 — Bulacan and Rizal, except the towns under City Command.

          RECO 4 — Laguna, Batangas, Quezon and Cavite.

          RECO 5 — Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, Albay and Sorsogon.

          RECO 6 — Panay, Negros, Cebu, Samar, Leyte, Bohol and Palawan.

          RECO 7 — Davao, Lanao, Cotabato, Zamboanga and Agusan.

          RECO 8 — Cagayan Valley provinces and Nueva Viscaya.

          RECO 9 — Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, Abra, and La Union.

          CITY COMMAND — Manila, Malabon, Caloocan, Navotas, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, Mandaluyong, San Juan, Marikina, Pasig, Guadalupe, Pasay, Baclaran, Parañaque, Muntinglupa and Alabang.

          The Communist Party of the Philippines has a flag, colored red, with the symbols of the hammer and the sickle (Exhibit A), and a newspaper organ called "TITIS". In the general

plan to indoctrinate the masses into communistic ideas and principles, communist schools — some of them called "Stalin University" — were set up in a number of places in the mountain fastnesses, where trained instructors gave lectures and taught lessons in the principles of Karl Marx, Frederich Engels, Joseph Stalin and Nicolai Lenin. .

          As has been stated, the CPP has an armed force, which is the HMB. The predecessor of the HMB was the HUKBALAHAP, an organization created by the party during the Japanese occupation to resist the Japanese forces. Upon liberation of the Philippines, the members of the Hukbalahap continued their activities, the organization was renamed HMB, and its members were indoctrinated in communistic principles. The members of the HMB are known as "Huks".

          The tie-up between the CPP and the HMB is established beyond doubt by the evidence. It is shown that the heads of the CPP were in regular communication with the leaders of the HMB, and the raids, ambushes, burnings, lootings and killings were planned and authorized by the CPP. Appellant Federico Maclang, who is a member of the Politburo, in his testimony, admitted that the HMB is the armed force of the CPP. Luis Taruc, who at the time was the head of the HMB, participated in the meetings and deliberations of the CPP. Some instances may be cited: (1) When Luis Taruc, leader of the HMB, was interviewed by Manuel Manahan representing the newspaper "Bagong Buhay", sometime in July 1950, the said interview was planned, approved and authorized by the Secretariat of the Communist Party. The purpose of the interview was to make Taruc declare about the true status of the leadership in the HMB and the CPP, and belie reports of division among the leaders; (2) When appellant Simeon Rodriguez, a member of the Politburo and a ranking member of the National Finance Committee, was arrested at 268 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila on October 18, 1950, there were found in his possession 65 P100-bills and 60 P50-bills and also P145 circulating notes and $312 in paper currency whose serial numbers (except two dollars) tallied with the serial numbers of part of the money (amounting to more than P80,000) that was taken by the Huks from the safe of the office of the Provincial Treasurer when they raided Sta. Cruz, Laguna, on August 26, 1950. Provincial Treasurer Balbino Kabigting of Laguna had a record of the serial numbers of the money taken by the Huks, and he even issued a warning to the public about the loss of the money — mentioning in the warning the serial numbers of the money taken. There are documents showing that this money taken from the provincial treasury of Laguna was the subject of communications between Luis Taruc and appellant Federico Maclang and other members of the Secretariat.

          Written articles and official publications of the CPP and HMB, which were presented as evidence, show the tie-up between the CPP and HMB. Following are some excerpts from those publications:

          As the situation now stands, it can be assumed that the HMB under Communist leadership, already enjoys a quantitative edge over the Nationalista Party ... (Exh. K-211, p. 7, "Struggle against Awaitism". Emphasis supplied).

          The enemy was caught by surprise. The CPP and the HMB it is leading scored a tremendous political victory ... (Exh. O-33, "Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP." Emphasis supplied)

          Documentary and testimonial evidence establish that the various raids and ambuscades perpetrated by the HMB were planned, directed and supported by the CPP. Thus, in the "Milestones in the History of the CPP", written by appellant Jose Lava, it is stated that at the enlarged Politburo conference of January, 1950, it was decided to intensify HMB military operations for political and organizational purposes. The widespread raids and attacks on the occasion of the 8th HMB anniversary (March 28-29, 1950) was decided at the PB conference:

          The conference specifically decided to launch coordinated military operations on the occasion of the eight anniversary of the HMB. (Exh. 249, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. V.)

          The CPP ordered the HMB to fight the Philippine Constabulary and attack government installations. Thus testified Benjamin Advincula, a former high ranking HMB member, who said that when he was Secretary of RECO No. 4, he received orders for transmission to the HMB to fight the Philippine Constabulary. Attacks by the HMB were also reported to the CPP. The accomplishments, for instance, of RECO 2 during the attacks at dawn on March 29, 1950 were reported in Enteng's (Luis Taruc) letter to the Secretariat on April 1, 1950. This letter reported the ambush and liquidation of Captain Dumlao and others; the attack and burning of the CG (Civilian Guard) camp at Manibong, Porac, and the capture of arms and ammunitions thereat; the losses on the enemy side; the burning of 12 houses and the liquidation of 2 spies at Mabalacat, Pampanga. A similar report was furnished by a certain Pedring of RECO 2 in a letter to Eto (Federico Maclang) dated April 2, 1950.

          It was, in fact, the Communist Party that celebrated the eighth anniversary of the HMB, as appears in the Communist Party document "Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP" in which we read about the simultaneous attacks of the HMB on March 29, 1950 the following:

          In quick succession, the Party celebrated the eighth anniversary of the HMB by the coordinated military operations from the far north down to southern Luzon ... (Exh. O-33, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. V)

          The Secretariat issued the following instructions in connection with the May 1, 1950 (Labor Day) attack:

          ... Repeat March 29 simultaneous attacks to time with May 1 celebration to convince the workers of the peasants' unity in struggle with them. Party and HMB messages to be sent. (Exh. O-313, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. V)

          Replying to said order (Exh. 0-313), the Politburo representative of Regional Command No. 3 wrote Gaston (Jose Lava of the Secretariat) and said:

          Ukol sa Plan for May lst OK. We will try our best to accomplish our part without hesitation. (Exh. M-179, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. III).

          The May 1, 1950 attack was followed by simultaneous attacks by the HMB on August 26, 1950, in commemoration of the first "Cry of Balintawak." These attacks were again decided, planned and directed by the Communist Party of the Philippines as shown by transmissions from the Secretariat to the Politburo members in the field. (Exhs. O-93; par. 2; O-102, par. 6). The attacks on August 26, 1950 were also ordered by the Secretariat, because the evidence shows that the Secretariat required submission of complete report thereof, and reports were in fact submitted by Taruc (Enteng) on September 9, 1950 (Exhs. O-638, par. 8; O-278).

          The Communist Party also planned the attack for November 7, 1950, the 20th anniversary of the CPP, which required bigger operations than the attack of August 26, because towns were to be captured, barracks and jails were to be raided and political enemies were to be liquidated. The SEC assigned and allocated the forces to different phases and places of operations. In hand-written notes identified by expert witness to have been written by appellant Jose Lava, the following appears in connection with the plans for November 7:

          ... Coordinated — Core: Capture of towns near Manila, but near Mt. bases — Coordination of RECO 2, 3 & 4, Rizal — Cavite. Pol liquidation in City. Bringing fight near strategic political, military and economic centers Supporting RECO 1 in ILOCOS & CAGAYAN. RECO 5 in BICOL & RECO 6 in VISAYAS. (Exh. O-12.)

          As We have stated, the primordial objective of the Communist Party of the Philippines and of its armed force, the HMB, was to overthrow the Philippine Government by armed struggle. To attain this objective, the CPP also envisioned the following expansion: of the cadres from 3,600 in July, 1950 to 56,000 in September 1951; of the party members from 10,900 in July, 1950 to 172,800 in September, 1951; of HMB members from 10,800 in July, 1950 to 172,800 in September, 1951; and of the organized masses from 30,000 in July, 1950 to 2,430,000 in September, 1951.

          The Communist Party declared the existence of a revolutionary situation in November, 1949 and went underground. This appears in the following excerpts from documents that were presented as evidence during the trial.

          Quickly sizing up the existence of a revolutionary situation, arising from the merger ... of the crises of production due to the imperialist-feudal domination of our economy, and the parliamentary crises due to fraud and terrorism in the 1949 elections, the CPP openly called on the people to overthrow the Liberal Party puppets of the American imperialists. (Exh. O-32, "Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP", Exh. O-12 [hh])

          In the Philippines, the CPP has already declared the existence of a revolutionary situation; and it is concentrating all its energies towards the hastening of the maturity of the revolutionary situation into a crisis leading to the overthrow of the imperialist puppets and the achievement of the NEW DEMOCRACY. (Exh. O-949, "Strategy and Tactics," Exhs. O-126-141) .

          The CPP has declared the existence of a revolutionary situation; since November, 1949, as a result of the merger of the crisis in production of our imperialist feudal dominated economy and the crisis of the burgeois parliamentarism ... Since then, the CPP went completely underground, and openly called on the people for the armed overthrow of the power of American imperialism and its allies in the Philippines exercised through its puppets ... (Exh. O-65)

          The Communist Party of the Philippines is leading the armed struggle for national liberation and the establishment of a New Democracy in order to crush the power of the exploiters, achieve power for the exploited classes, and who are disposed to accept the new society ..." (Exh. O-119 "Accounting for the Peoples' Fund Received and Spent to Finance the Revolution"; see also Exhs. K-12 (u), N-570-573, M-1574, K-244, O-749-56, Documents approved by SEC in its meeting on February 15, 1950. Exh. O-312, par. 3. See Vol. III, Folder of Exhibits)

          ... The Communist Party marks the 54th anniversary of the CRY OF BALINTAWAK calling on the people to join the HMB in annihilating the enemy today, no different from the enemy denounced by Bonifacio. (Exh. M-1524, Vol. III, Folder of Exhibits).

          We find that the criminal acts, consisting of attacks against Philippine Constabulary, murders, robberies, kidnapping, arson, etc. alleged in the information are duly proved by evidence presented during the trial. It is noteworthy that the appellants did not attempt to disprove the evidence regarding the commission of these crimes. Besides those alleged in the information, there were other acts of attacks against the Philippine Constabulary, murders, robberies, etc. that were committed by the Huks that are proved by the evidence — also not disproved by the appellants — as follows:

(1) On March 29, 1950, a band of armed Huks carrying a communist flag raided San Pablo, Laguna. An encounter with the 27th PC Company ensued, and several members of the PC were injured. The Huks looted several Chinese stores.

(2) At about 3 o'clock in the morning of August 26, 1950, approximately 400 Huk dissidents armed with machine guns and rifles attacked Santa Cruz, Laguna. The cashier of the office of the Provincial Treasurer was forced at gun point, to open the vault from which the Huks took more than P80,600. The Huks also took typewriters and office supplies from the office of the Provincial Treasurer. The Huks, after forcing the warden to give the keys, opened the provincial jail and released the prisoners. The provincial jail was later burned. The Huks looted houses and took rice, cigarettes and clothes, and burned five buildings.

(3) On March 29, 1950, several Huks raided San Mateo, Rizal, opened the safe in the municipal building and took money. They also got food and medicines from the townspeople.

(4) On August 28, 1950, Huks attacked the municipal building of Arayat, Pampanga, and forced the municipal mayor at the point of a gun to give P3,629.31 in cash and some documentary stamps. Killed during the incident was one Atty. Samia.

(5) On March 28, 1950, about 80 to 100 Huks attacked San Rafael, Montalban, killing 4 and wounding all soldiers. After the attack, the Huks left communist propaganda leaflets.

(6) On August 30, 1949, upon receiving a report that there was a concentration of Huks at Kamog, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, Lt. Restituto A. Bisda organized a patrol of 20 enlisted men. On the way the patrol was fired upon by the Huks. After the encounter, one Huk member was found dead and from his body were taken several documents.

(7) On October 15 and 17, 1950, P.C. Lt. Velasquez led three platoons of soldiers to the southwestern slope of Mount Malipuño at Lipa City upon receipt of a report that about 200 Huks were gathered in that place. While climbing the mountain they were suddenly attacked and fired upon by the dissidents killing one soldier and wounding others. When they retaliated, the Huks retreated leaving behind a wounded Huk. The Huks abandoned their hideouts in the place. Upon inspection, Lt. Velasquez found a hut with several blackboards, papers and other school supplies inside and a red hammer-and-sickle flag displayed on the wall with letters "STALIN U" (Stalin University), which indicated that the place is one of the military schools for the Huks. (The flag was produced in court and marked Exhibit "A" for the prosecution. This flag had been identified by a witness for the prosecution, a former Huk Colonel named Benjamin Advincula, to be the official flag of the HMB in their military training school in the mountains wherein he had also undergone Huk military training.)

(8) At about midnight on March 29, 1950, Huk dissidents entered the town of Tanauan, Batangas. According to George Collantes, the municipal mayor, there was shooting in the town, and later the industrial center and market were burned after they were raided. Mayor Collantes saw a red flag hoisted by the dissidents. Two of the Huk dissidents were killed.

Issues raised by appellants

          The appellants, in their defense in the present appeals, have raised issues that are common to them all, and also issues particular to each one of them. The issues particular to individual appellants will be discussed at the latter part of this opinion when we deal with their respective appeals.

          1. The appellants are charged with having committed the crime of rebellion with murders and arsons. The trial court declared some of them guilty as principals, and some as accomplices, in the commission of the crime of rebellion complexed with multiple murder, arsons and robberies.

          The law pertinent to the determination of the criminal responsibility of the appellants are Articles 134, 135, and 136 of Revised Penal Code, as follows: .

          ART 134. Rebellion or insurrection — How committed. — The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or

its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or of depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.

          ART. 135. Penalty for rebellion or insurrection. — Any person who promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion or insurrection, or who, while holding any public office or employment takes part therein, engaging in war against the forces of the Government, destroying property or committing serious violence, exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 20,000 pesos.

          Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.

          When the rebellion or insurrection shall be under the command of unknown leaders, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the rebels shall be deemed the leader of such rebellion.

          ART. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection. — The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished, respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed 5,000 pesos, and by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

          It is the common contention of the appellants that the trial court erred in declaring that the crime committed by the appellants was that of "rebellion complexed with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies."

          We uphold the contention of the appellants. The question, of whether or not a person may be prosecuted and held guilty of the crime of rebellion complexed with murder, arson, robbery and/or other common crimes, is now settled. In the case of People vs. Hernandez, etc., et al., 1 this Court held that the crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with other common crimes. The accused in the Hernandez case were charged, as are appellants in the instant cases, "with the crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies." This Court ruled that:

          One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said Article 135, 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, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical injuries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and unhappiness that war leaves in its wake — except that very often, it is worse than war in the international sense, for it involves internal struggle, a fight between brothers, with a bitterness and a passion or ruthlessness seldom found in a contest between strangers. Being within the purview of "engaging in war" and "committing serious

violence", said resort to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction of life and property, constitutes not two or more offenses, but only onecrime — that of rebellion plain and simple. Thus, for instance, it has been held that "the crime of treason may be committed" by executing either a single or similar intentional overt acts, different or similar but distinct, and for that reason, it may be considered one single continuous offense. (Guinto vs. Veluz, 77 Phil. 801, 44 Off. Gaz., 909.)" (People vs. Pacheco, 93 Phil. 521.).

          Inasmuch as the acts specified in said Article 135 constitute, we repeat, one single crime, it follows necessarily that said acts offer no occasion for the application of Article 48, which requires therefor the commission of, at least, two crimes. Hence, this court has never in the past, convicted any person of the "complex crime of rebellion with murder". What is more, it appears that in every one of the cases of rebellion published in the Philippine Reports, the defendants were convicted of simple rebellion, although they had killed several persons, sometimes peace officers. (U.S. vs. Lagnason, 3 Phil. 472; U.S. vs. Baldello, 3 Phil. 509; U.S. vs. Ayala, 6 Phil. 151; League vs. People, 73 Phil. 155)

x x x           x x x           x x x

          There is one other reason — and a fundamental one at that — why Article 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes 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.

          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 than that which would be proper if the several acts performed by him were punished separately. In the words of Rodriguez Navarro:

          La unificacion de penas en los casos de concurso de delitos a que hace referencia este articulo (75 del Codigo de 1932), esta basado francamente en el principio pro reo. (II Doctrina Penal del Tribunal Supremo de España, p. 2168.)

          ... It is evident to us that the policy of our statutes on rebellion is to consider all acts committed in furtherance thereof — as specified in Article 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code — as constituting onlyone crime, punishable with one single penalty — namely, that prescribed in said Article 135. ....

          ... In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations of the amended information against defendant-appellant Amado V. Hernandez, the murders, arsons and robberies described therein are mere ingridients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by the said defendants, as means "necessary" (4) for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion; that the crime charged in the aforementioned amended information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies; that the maximum penalty imposable under such charge cannot exceed twelve (12) years of prision mayor and a fine of P20,000; and that, in conformity with the policy of this court in dealing with accused persons amenable to a similar punishment, said defendant may be allowed to bail." The foregoing ruling was adhered to in the decisions of this Court in the cases of People vs. Geronimo, G.R. No. L-8936, October 23, 1956; People vs. Togonon, G.R. No. L-8926, June 29, 1957; People vs. Romagosa, G.R. No. L-8476, February 28, 1958; and People vs. Santos, G.R. No. L-11813, September 17, 1958.

          In People vs. Geronimo, supra, this Court further elaborated on the Hernandez ruling, as follows:

          As in treason, where both intent and overt act are necessary, the crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of both the armed uprising for the purposes expressed in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, and the overt acts of violence described in the first paragraph of Article 135. That both purpose and overt acts are essential components of one crime, and that without either of them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist is shown by the absence of any penalty attached to Article 134. It follows, therefore, that any or all of the acts described in Article 135, when committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends described in Article 134, becomes absorbed in the crime of rebellion, and cannot be regarded or penalized as distinct crimes in themselves. In law they are part and parcel of the rebellion itself, and cannot be considered as giving rise to a separate crime, that, under Article 48 of the Code, would constitute a complex one with that of rebellion.

          And in People vs. Aquino, et al., L-13789, June 30, 1960, 57 O.G. 9180, this Court said:

          On the other hand, from the very testimony of Filomeno Casal, another witness for the prosecution, it can be gathered that the one who killed or ordered the killing of Mendoza was Commander Silva who, according to Casal, ordered Mendoza to lie down and when the latter refused he shot him. If we are to believe the testimony of this witness the only one responsible for Mendoza's death is Commander Silva for there is nothing to show that his companions who were under his command knew that his design was to liquidate him. At any rate, since it appears that the killing was committed not because of any personal motive on the part of the accused but merely in pursuance of the huk movement to overthrow the duly constituted authorities, the proper charge against them would be rebellion and not murder ....

          The reason for this was already given by this Court in People vs. Hernandez, et al., supra, to wit:

          In short, 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 said offense 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."2

          The Solicitor General, in behalf of the appellee, The People of the Philippines, asks this Court to reexamine the ruling in the Hernandez case "based not only on grounds of public policy but also to interpret the law in order to have justice and adequacy into the Philippine law on rebellion on the basis of prevailing jurisprudential schools of thought such as the sociological theory on the natural law doctrine and ... the policy science theory." 3 This Court has given this plea of the Solicitor General a very serious consideration, but after a mature deliberation the members of this Court have decided to maintain that ruling in the Hernandez case and to adhere to what this Court said in that case, as follows:

          The Court is conscious of the keen interest displayed, and the considerable efforts exerted, by the Executive Department in the apprehension and prosecution of those believed to be guilty of crimes against public order, of the lives lost, and the time and money spent in connection therewith, as well as of the possible implications or repercussions in the security of the State. The careful consideration given to said policy of a coordinate and co-equal branch of the Government is reflected in the time consumed, the extensive and intensive research work undertaken, and the many meetings held by the members of the court for the purpose of elucidating on the question under discussion and of settling the same.

          The role of the judicial department under the Constitution is, however, clear — to settle justiciable controversies by the application of the law. And the latter must be enforced as it is — with all its flaws and defects, not affecting its validity — not as the judges would have it. In other words, the courts must apply the policy of the State as set forth in its laws, regardless of the wisdom thereof.

x x x           x x x           x x x

          Thus the settled policy of our laws on rebellion, since the beginning of the century, has been one of decided leniency, in comparison with the laws in force during the Spanish regime. Such policy has not suffered the slightest alteration. Although the Government has, for the past five or six years, adopted a more vigorous course of action in the apprehension of violators of said law and in their prosecution, the established policy of the State, as regards the punishment of the culprits has remained unchanged since 1932. It is not for us to consider the merits and demerits of such policy. This falls within the province of the policy-making branch of the Government — the Congress of the Philippines ...

x x x           x x x           x x x

          Such evils as may result from the failure of the policy of the law punishing the offense to dovetail with the policy of the law enforcing agencies in the apprehension and prosecution of the offenders are matters which may be brought to the attention of the departments concerned. The judicial branch cannot amend the former in order to suit the latter. The Court cannot indulge in judicial legislation without violating the principles of separation of powers, and, hence, undermining the foundation of our republican system. In short, we cannot accept the theory of the prosecution without causing much bigger harm than that which would allegedly result from the adoption of the opposite view.

2. The appellants also contend that the informations against them charge more than one offense, in violation of Section 12, Rule 106 of the old Rules of Court (now Section 12, Rule 117 of the new Rules of Court). This contention has no merit. A reading of the informations reveals the theory of the prosecution that the accused had committed the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies and arsons, enumerating therein eight counts regarding specific acts of murder, robbery and arson. These acts were committed, to quote the information, "to create and spread terrorism in order to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose", that is, to overthrow the Government. The appellants are not charged with the commission of each and every crime specified in the counts as crimes separate and distinct from that of rebellion. The specific acts are alleged merely to complete the narration of facts, thereby specifying the way the crime of rebellion was allegedly committed, and to apprise the defendants of the particular facts intended to be proved as the basis for a finding of conspiracy and/or direct participation in the commission of the crime of rebellion. 4 An information is not duplicitous if it charges several related acts, all of which constitute a single offense, although the acts may in themselves be distinct offenses. 5 Moreover, this Court has held that acts of murder, arson, robbery, physical injuries, etc. are absorbed by, and form part and parcel of, the crime of rebellion if committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion charged. 6

3. Another contention of appellants is that the trial court, the Court of First Instance of Manila, did not have jurisdiction to try the cases against them because the acts enumerated in the eight counts in the information were committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This contention is also without merit. Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province where the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place. The informations allege that Manila is the seat of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines which the appellants sought to overthrow and that Manila was chosen by the accused as the nerve center of all their rebellious activities in the different parts of the country. While it is true that the murders, robberies and arsons alleged in the information were committed outside the City of Manila, in the informations it is alleged that it was in Manila where the accused had decided and agreed to commit the crime of rebellion and it was in Manila where they promoted, maintained, caused, directed and/or commanded the HMB to rise publicly and take arms against the Government, as in fact the HMB had risen publicly, making armed raids, sorties, ambushes, and committing wanton acts of murder, arson, looting, etc. An essential ingredient of the crime of which appellants were charged, therefore, took place in Manila.

4. Some of the appellants contend that their constitutional rights were violated because the documentary evidence presented against them were illegally seized or had come from doubtful sources. This claim has no merit. We have carefully examined the record, and We find that search warrants were properly secured by the peace officers before raids were effected and that the documents, articles and effects seized from each place raided were listed, inventoried and marked. It even appears that statements were signed by some of the appellants certifying that the search warrants were executed in an orderly and peaceful manner by the raiding parties.

5. The appellants assail the reconstitution of the exhibits that were destroyed, and claim that the reconstituted exhibits should not be considered in this appeal. We have stated at the earlier part of this opinion that the exhibits (documentary and other articles) were placed in the custody of the Philippine Constabulary because they had to be presented as evidence in the trial of rebellion cases pending in other courts. Most of the originals of the documentary evidence were burned during the fire that gutted the headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary on September 10, 1958. The Solicitor General filed a petition for the reconstitution of the burned exhibits. The petition was given due course by this Court, and the Deputy Clerk of this Court was commissioned to receive the evidence on the reconstitution of the burned documents. The list of reconstituted exhibits is Exhibit C-Reconstitution. In his report, dated October 6, 1959, the Commissioner recommended the admission of all the reconstituted exhibits.

          We find that the reconstitution was made in accordance with the provisions of Act 3110, which provides for the procedure in the reconstitution of court records. Section 59 of said act provides that destroyed documentary evidence shall be reconstituted by means of secondary evidence which may be presented to any Justice of the Supreme Court or any other officer commissioned by the Court. Section 14 of the act provides that the destroyed or lost documentary evidence shall be replaced by secondary evidence. A photostatic copy of an original document is admissible as a secondary evidence of the contents of the originals and they constitute evidence of a satisfactory nature. 7 The record shows that the photostatic copies of the destroyed exhibits, which were presented before the Commissioner during the reconstitution proceedings, were taken before the originals were destroyed by fire. The photostatic copies had been compared with the originals, properly checked and recorded, by the officer who was the custodian of the exhibits.

          The certified typewritten copies made from the original documents that were hand written in ink are also secondary evidence of the contents of the latter. Sgt. Aquilino Tingco, assigned as assistant to the document officer in charge of the court of exhibits in the rebellion cases, testified that he was the one who furnished the typists the original documents, and after those originals were copied on the typewriter he compared the typewritten copies with the originals, proofread them, stamped them and had them certified as true copies. This witness further testified that before the certified copies were presented in court as evidence said copies were compared with their originals. 8

          During the reconstitution proceedings, counsel for appellants objected to the admission of some of the reconstituted documents upon the ground that they were not sufficiently identified. The Commissioner, however, admitted all there constituted documents, and We find that the Commissioner rightly did so. We find that Exhibits R-X-6 to

R-P-73-79, the admission of which was objected to, were properly identified. Captain Enrique L. Reyes of the PC, who was entrusted with the custody of the documents, had the list of all the exhibits that were burned, which were inventoried and verified; as well as a list of those exhibits that were presented in these cases, of which photostatic copies had been taken; and when asked where the photostatic copies were, Capt. Reyes said that he had the photostatic copies, and pointed to a bundle of folders containing them. These exhibits were checked and counter-checked with the record of the present cases in the Supreme Court. 9 Sgt. Aquilino Tingco, who brought the exhibits to the different courts where they were presented as evidence, and who personally supervised the taking of the microfilm and the photostatic copies that were presented in the courts in lieu of the originals, when asked to show to the Commissioner the photostats made of the documents which were used the Politburo cases, extracted from a folder a bundle of papers and presented the list of exhibits (Exh. C-Reconstitution) along with photostatic copies of those listed exhibits, and he testified on them. The witness was asked to consult the list of exhibits (Exhibit C-Reconstitution) and he pointed to the Commissioner the exhibits to be marked according to the list, which the Commissioner himself marked. The witness testified that the contents of the documents thus marked were the same as those of the originals. The Commissioner considered the documents properly identified and he admitted the documents over the objection of counsel for the appellants, and he recommended to this Court the admission of all of them. This Court approved the report of the Commissioner.

          We have carefully examined and analyzed these reconstituted exhibits and We believe that they constitute a competent evidence to be considered in arriving at a decision in these cases.

          6. The appellants also claim that they were not afforded the time and freedom to prepare for their defense. This claim of appellants is not borne by the record. The record shows, that the trial of these cases took months; all the defendants were represented by counsel, either de officio or de parte, who did their best to defend the appellants during the trial. In fact the defense lawyers were commended by the trial court for their efforts in defense of the appellants. None of the appellants was deprived of his day in court. Everyone was given an opportunity testify and/or adduce evidence in his behalf. All the appellants, except Jose Lava and Nicanor Razon, Sr., testified in court in their own defense. The record does not show that appellant Razon had testified or had presented any evidence in his behalf. Appellant Jose Lava voluntarily refrained from taking the witness stand, but, instead, he presented witnesses who vouched for his good moral character and exemplary conduct as a citizen. We find no merit in the claim that the appellants were not afforded ample time and opportunity to prepare for their defense.

          Having thus resolved the common issues raised by the appellants, We now proceed to determine the criminal responsibility, if any, of the individual appellants.

          The lower court found some of the appellants guilty as principals, and some as accomplices, in the commission of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies. We have already declared in this opinion that the crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, robbery and other common crimes. Our task, therefore, is to determine the degree of responsibility of each of the appellants in the commission of

the crime of simple rebellion as defined and penalized under the provisions of Articles 134, 135 and 136 of the Revised Penal Code.

          1. The appeal of Jose Lava

          Upon a careful study of the evidence, We find:

          That appellant Jose Lava was known under these aliases: Harry, Felix Cruz, Gaston, Gaston Silayan, Greg, Gregorio Santayana and Gavino. Jose Lava became a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines during the Japanese occupation. In a self-appraisal which he wrote, and published in mimeograph form with the approval of the Secretariat, he stated that although he was a new Party member he had been entrusted with responsible positions in the Party and that due to his high sense of responsibility and initiative he could rank with the best in the party. Lava was not only, a confirmed communist; he was a ranking leader of the CPP, being a member of the Central Committee (CC) of the CPP and he participated in the Politburo meetings. In the Politburo conference in Manila in January 1947 he proposed armed struggle to overthrow the Government. His participation therein was described in Exhibit O-228-229, as follows:

          ... There was an attempt in the conference to give it a character of a CC conference notwithstanding the fact that there were only eleven CC members, out of thirty-five, present in the conference. There was also an attempt to isolate some CC members who were easily available, as evidenced by the non-invitation of Coms VY, Harry and Pacing known for their views in support of the Nacionalista-Democratic Alliance coalition, and for an early resumption of the armed struggle. It was only later in the conference, when their absence was noted by certain comrades, that Com Harry was invited to the conference ....

          Com Harry proposed that the conference declare that armed struggle be the main form of struggle ....

          Other documents show that Jose Lava had been attending meetings of the Secretariat (SEC) since October, 1949. He signed, under the alias "Gaston Silayan", the Secretariat's transmission to the Politburo members in the field, under date of October 22, 1949. He issued under different aliases, for and in behalf of the Secretariat, Secretariat transmissions up to October 14, 1950. He signed as "Gaston" the Secretariat's transmission dated December 24, 1949; he signed as "Greg" those of July 22, 1950, of September 23, 1950, of September 30, 1950, of October 7, 1950, and of October 14, 1950; and signed as "Gavino" the transmission dated September 25, 1950.

          Jose Lava's membership in the Secretariat of the CPP is shown in various documents (Exh. C-1313 and Exhs. O-269-270). In another exhibit, N-1015-1017, Kas. Gaston was addressed as the General Secretary.

          As member of the SEC, and as General Secretary, Jose Lava attended SEC meetings and transmitted the decisions of the SEC to the comrades of the Politburo in the regional commands. His direct participation in the meetings of the SEC was mentioned in several SEC transmissions. In one such transmission he (Gaston) advocated the overthrow

of the corrupt Liberal Party administration because of the wholesale fraud and terrorism during the elections of 1949. In the meeting of May 5, 1950, he (Gaston) disagreed with Eto (Federico Maclang) and Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) on the way of giving money to deserving families, saying that:

          Even if we have a million pesos now, we still would need same to buy arms and ammo, decisively improve our propaganda to spread our influence over all the country, improve the diet of our fighting soldiers to increase their fighting efficiency, all with a view to hastening the people's victory and end their suffering earlier. (Exh. O-91, par. 2)

          In the SEC meeting of September 29, 1950 "Greg" (Jose Lava) dissented from the majority decision rejecting the proposal that Boris (Angel Baking) be allowed to attend the Military Committee (MC) meeting. (Exh. O-339, par. 15).

          Apart from his routinary duties as General Secretary, other duties were assigned to Jose Lava under hisaliases. Thus, as "Gaston", he was designated in the SEC's meeting of December 20, 1949 to take care of the editorial of the "TITIS", the official organ of the Communist Party; he was given supervision over women matters, and over political and educational matters, in the meetings of February 15, 1950 and April 14, 1950. "Gaston" was also in charge of Direct Party Propaganda, Curriculum and Analysis. As "Greg", he was appointed by the SEC as one of the 15 members of the Military Committee (MC). He was to supervise, as decided in the SEC meeting of April 14, 1950, the newly organized Technological Group. He was instructed by the SEC, in its meeting of September 15, 1950, to prepare a draft of the resolution for discussion before the Military Committee. In the meeting of the SEC on September 22, 1950, he was given power to review all the minutes and decisions of the National Education Commission (NEC) and only matters which he did not approve were to be taken up by the Secretariat.

          Jose Lava also attended and presided at meetings of the Communists and the HMB in his house in Tejeron, Makati. 10

          Jose Lava was the author of many articles and/or writings, among them: "Self-Appraisal by Gregorio Santayana," a handwritten outline; "Struggle against Awaitism, by Gregorio Santayana", also a handwritten outline, with a typewritten copy; "Outline of Strategy and Tactics"; "Strategy and Tactics"; "Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP"; "Outline on Milestones in the History of the CPP"; "Milestones in the History of the CPP", which is a part of the curriculum in the secondary course of the schools conducted by the CPP. The "Outline on Strategy and Tactics" and "Strategy and Tactics" were also in the secondary curriculum texts of the CPP. He is also the author of "Finance Opportunism, Its Basic Causes and Remedies", a portion of which reads: .

          ... There is no question that we cannot drastically eradicate finance opportunism within the Party and the National liberation movement it is leading, and thereby hasten the maturity of the revolutionary crisis and prepare the Party to create a clear and honest body of administrators and state functionaries and thereby maintain the power of the NEW DEMOCRACY that we are set to establish.

          Another work of Jose Lava is "Accounting of the People's Funds Received and Spent to Finance the Revolutions", a portion of which reads as follows:

          The Communist Party of the Philippines is leading the armed struggle for national liberation and the establishment of a New Democracy in order to crush the power of the exploiters, achieve power for the exploited classes and exercise such power for their benefit, and for those who are disposed to accept the new society ....

          Jose Lava also wrote other documents, among them his handwritten notes containing the territorial extent of Recos 1 to 7, and a plan of attack on the November 7, 1950 celebration; a list containing several persons (aliases) assigned to Recos 1 to 7 and to the Military, Pol-Ed, organizational and GHQ organs; a letter to Eto (Federico Maclang) on the reverse of a list containing names of Malaca_¤_an special agents. He also wrote letters to Party members concerning the activities of the Party and/or HMB — unmistakably indicating conspiracy or connection between him and other top HMB and CPP leaders in the field. Thus, "Gaston" (Lava) wrote a letter to Leo (Cesareo Torres) informing the latter that the stencils for "Ang Komunista" were already sent by NED-Out and that if Leo needed funds, he could ask from the NFC. In a letter of September 4, 1950 to Eto (Federico Maclang), "Gaston" (Lava) transmitted to Maclang three letters, on the reverse side of one which was a note of O. Beria (Maclang) asking who the writers were. In his letter of September 26, 1950 "Gaston" advised Eto (Maclang) to circularize all Recos about the conference of the RECO-Ed and G-3 before October 15. In his letter of September 12, Gaston asked the addressee Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) about the latter's self-appraisal, the Hospital Group, and the selection of two additional members to help Luming (Iluminada Calonje or Salome Cruz).

          The foregoing findings of this Court are based mainly on documents presented as evidence during the trial. Those documents were taken: some from the third floor of the Mayflower Apartments, at Estrada and Pennsylvania Streets in Manila, which was then rented by appellant Lava when it was raided by peace officers on June 23, 1950; and the other documents from the different places that were raided by the MIS agents and the Manila Police on October 18, 1950, where most of the accused in these five cases were arrested. One of the places raided on October 18, 1950 was 683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, where appellant Lava was arrested along with his co-accused Federico Bautista, Simeon Rodriguez, Victorina G. Rodriguez and Pedro Vicencio. Numerous documents, books, and articles were seized at that place where Lava was arrested, and those documents were used as evidence during the trial of these five cases in the court below.

          Some of the documents thus seized, and which were presented as evidence, were in appellant Lava's handwriting, or were signed by him using his alias names. This is clearly established by the testimony of a handwriting expert that was presented by the prosecution. The conclusion of the handwriting expert was based on the specimens of Lava's handwriting which were used as standards in comparing with the handwriting and/or signature (in alias) of the appellant that appear in the documents that were presented as evidence against him. It is contended by appellant's counsel that no genuine specimen of Lava's handwriting was presented as standard for comparison. We do not see merit in this contention. We find that the standards for comparison that were used were the documents marked Exhibits FF-1 and FF-2. 11 Exhibit FF-1 is an application for employment signed by

Jose Lava. The signature thereon was testified to by witness Eduardo Romualdez (now Secretary of Finance) as looking "like the signature of Jose Lava." Eduardo Romualdez was acquainted with the handwriting of Jose Lava, having received reports (Exh. FF), parts of which were in the handwriting of Jose Lava "not less than three or four times" while Jose lava, was a bank examiner. 12 Exhibit FF-2 is a cardboard containing a list of books requested by Jose Lava while the latter was detained in Bilibid Prison. Buenaventura Villanueva, to whom the list was given, testified that he saw Lava writing the list on the cardboard. What appears on Exhibit FF-2 is certainly a genuine specimen of Lava's handwriting.

          The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person, and has seen the person write. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. 13 The handwriting expert who made the comparison in this case positively identified the handwriting of Jose Lava on the documents presented as evidence against said appellant, specially the handwritten names of Gregorio Santayana, Gaston, Gaston Silayan, Gavino and Greg. 14

          Appellant Jose Lava did not take the witness stand to testify in his own behalf. Instead, he presented witnesses to testify on his good moral character, his strong convictions and his good citizenship. An accused, however, is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous good moral character and exemplary conduct. When a court believes that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, it must convict him notwithstanding evidence of his good moral character and previous exemplary conduct. 15

          We find that the evidence adduced during the trial has proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Jose Lava was one of the top leaders of the CCP, and that he was not only working to propagate the doctrine of communism in the Philippines but was actually promoting an armed uprising against the Government. He did not actually take to the field and participate in the armed attacks against constituted authorities, but in the positions that he held in the CCP, he actually promoted, maintained, and even directed the armed activities of the HMB which were aimed at overthrowing the Government and implanting a new system of government in the Philippines. As General Secretary of the CCP he signed, in his aliases, the communications or transmissions of the Secretariat to the HMB and CCP leaders in the field. As We have stated in this opinion, there was a tie-up between the CCP and the HMB, and that the HMB was the military arm of the CCP. The CCP went underground sometime in November 1949. It was precisely during the latter part of 1949 and during the year 1950 (before the arrests of the accused in these five cases on October 18, 1950) when the HMB was most active in its armed operations against the Government — or against the elements of the Army, the PC and the Police, and against public officials and even against civilians. The evidence against appellant Lava shows that it was in 1949 and 1950 when he, in his capacity as one of the top leaders of the CPP, actively participated in the armed struggle being carried on by the HMB by sending directives and other communications to the leaders of the HMB and to the heads of the regional commands of the CPP who were operating in the field. He was, in fact, one of the leaders of the rebellion. He planned the attack for the November 7, (1950) anniversary celebration,

which was to include the capture of towns near Manila and the liquidation of enemies in the City by the different regional commands.

          We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Jose Lava is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          2. Appeal of Federico Bautista

          We find it conclusively shown by the evidence that:

          Appellant Federico Bautista had used, or was known under, the aliases: F. Payat, Fred, Freddie, and Freding. He was arrested by the MIS agents and the police on October 18, 1950 at 683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, along with his co-accused Jose Lava, Simeon Rodriguez, Victorina G. Rodriguez and Pedro Vicencio. He joined the CPP on August 8, 1949. Testifying in his own behalf, he said that he joined the CPP because of the failure of the administration then to carry out the terms of the Amnesty Proclamation which he helped to bring about; and also because, of the ouster of six members of Congress from the central Luzon provinces who were elected in the 1946 elections, of the frauds and terrorism committed in subsequent elections and the graft and corruption in the government.

          He was a member of the National Finance Committee of the CPP, 16 of which committee Ramon Espiritu (co-accused) was the chairman, and Simeon Rodriguez (co-accused) was a ranking member. As such member of the National Finance Committee part of his duties and responsibilities was the procurement of supplies, such as arms, ammunitions, medicine, office supplies, clothing, etc., for the dissidents' (both of the CPP and of the HMB) organizations in the field. He became a member of the Military Committee of the CPP, with special assignment as Chief of Intelligence, GHQ. 17 He was also assigned to, and exercised authority over, the armed forces (AF [HMB]) in Manila and suburbs, which was called the City Command. He also had supervisory powers over the National Courier Division. 18

          This appellant did not actually take to the field and participated in the armed operations of the HMB, but he did staff work which to promote, maintain and direct the operations of the HMB. Thus, there was presented in evidence a letter 19 written by this appellant to Leo (co-accused Cesareo Torres), under date of July 10, 1950, transmitting the latest party decision regarding authorized daily subsistence allowance of personnel of the CPP organs, ranging from P1.00 to P1.20. Cesareo Torres is the head of the Technical Office in charge of propaganda. In a handwritten tabulation prepared by him, 20 which was sort of a financial statement, there is shown an amount spent for communications and for intelligence. It appears that of the total income of P8,006.80 for April, May and June 1950, 20% was allotted for ammunitions and 10% for intelligence. This financial statement, as finally published, was certified to by Johnny (co-accused Ramon Espiritu) as head of the National Finance Committee, and audited and approved by Tommy (co-accused Honofre Mangila). This document once more indicates clearly that the HMB was being supported by the CPP.

          There is a document labelled "Memorandum on Intelligence", 21 a typewritten draft, which was shown to bear the pencil handwritten insertions and corrections made by appellant Federico Bautista, indicating that this draft was prepared by him. Portion of this document reads:

          Without deviating from the general orientation of expanding evenly along the four branches of intelligence, viz.: Political, economic, cultural and military, the emphasis for the present is on military intelligence both strategic and tactical. This is in conformity with and in direct pursuance of the Party's program of "all for expansion and the armed struggle." The mechanics of wresting power will eventually be a military struggle, we must have a continual basis by which we can estimate what the enemy intends to do and the tenacity with which they will implement these intentions singly and collectively.

          Appellant Federico Bautista was identified with the high councils of the CPP. He attended Politburo conferences. 22 Along with Ramon Espiritu and one Nicasio Pamintuan, he sat to try, and found guilty, one Domingo Clarin, a member of the HMB Trigger Squad, who was charged with having squealed regarding the hold-up of the Naric in Pulilan. Appellant Federico Bautista had previously assigned Clarin to guard Jose Lava. 23

          We have carefully studied the evidence for the prosecution and defense, as well as the argument of the counsel in the appellant's brief, and We believe that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Federico Bautista is one of the leaders of the rebellion jointly undertaken by the CPP and HMB. We agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          3. Appeal of Federico Maclang

          Appellant Federico Maclang was arrested on October 18, 1950 by agents of the MIS and the Manila Police at 1938 Interior 7, Felix Huertas, Manila, along with Julita Rodriguez and Felipe Engreso — the latter two being among those convicted by the lower court in these five cases, but Julita Rodriguez withdrew her appeal. He used the aliases: O. Beria, Eto, Olibas, Manuel Santos, Manuel Santa Fe and Ambrosia Reyes.

          The evidence conclusively shows that this appellant is a ranking communist, and he was responsible for the organization of the CPP in Manila and Rizal. He issued directives, plans and instructions to the different units of the CPP in the field that were working in close collaboration with the HMB in the latter's armed operations. By his own testimony he revealed that he is a confirmed communist. He declared that he was one of the organizers of the PKM (a peasants' organization) in Luzon, that he became a communist after studying thoroughly the principles of communism in relation to the economic and political conditions of the country; that he believes in the overthrow of "imperialism" and the establishment of a "new democracy" in the Philippines.

          It is shown by the evidence that:

          Appellant Maclang joined the CPP sometime in 1939; and he was a member of the Politburo from 1944 up to the time of his arrest on October 18, 1950. 24

          In the document labelled "Pagtuya sa Sarile", shown to have been written by him, 25 it appears that he was the Chief of the Organizational Bureau (OB) of the CPP from 1948 until the time of his arrest, and that as an organizer he was responsible for the organization of the Regional Commands (Recos) of the party. He was also one of the members of the Secretariat, and as such he actively participated in the deliberations and decisions of the body.

          In several letters of Enteng (Luis Taruc) to him, which were identified during the trial, as well as in his letter to Enteng, a copy of which was found in his possession and was identified by him, 26 his membership in the Secretariat is clearly shown. As a member of the Secretariat he was assigned the supervision on all organizational matters, on the youth problems and activities, and also on military affairs. Likewise, he was assigned supervision over the Trade Union Division (TUD) and the trade union struggle; also he had supervision over the news section of the TITIS; and he was authorized by the Secretariat to review the decisions of the Regional Command (RECO) and, like appellant Jose Lava, only those decisions which he did not approve were taken up by the Secretariat. 27As chief of the Organizational Bureau he issued, or approved the issuance of, circulars, plans, and directives to the different organs of the CPP. 28

          This appellant prepared the document entitled "Impiltrasyon". 29 In this document he discussed the problems of infiltration and the methods or techniques to be followed by party members in infiltrating government offices, the armed forces, and the ranks of anti-communist groups, in connection with the underground work of the CPP and the HMB. He also prepared "Pakikibaka sa Pagani" 30 where he urged the peasants to fight for bigger crop shares, and the workers to fight for better wages, pointing out that the government cannot meet the demands of the working class so that the only alternative is to support the "People's Liberation Movement" and effect changes through armed struggle. He wrote the "Pangatawanan ang Kampanya sa Pagpalawak ng Ating Patanim at Pagpalitaw sa Inuhi". 31 where he states the policy of the CPP regarding the expansion of the production areas and the production of more crops to maintain and support the revolution and to prepare the masses for self-government.

          Likewise, he wrote the "Ang Kompiskasyon", a circular issued by the Organizational Bureau (OB), of which he was the head, to all the organizational units of the CPP, explaining the Party's theory of confiscation. This circular authorizes confiscation as a means to raise revenue for the "People's Liberation Movement". This circular lists the classes of individuals who are considered enemies of the revolution and whose properties may be confiscated. 32

          When this appellant was arrested on October 18, 1950, there were found in his possession documents which indubitably show the high positions that he occupied in the CPP and the direct connections that he had with the operations of the HMB. Thus, there is Exhibit N-52, which is a partial report of Reco 2 regarding military operations during the "Cry of Balintawak" celebration. In this report are stated the simultaneous HMB attacks at Camp Makabulos, Tarlac, and at Arayat in the evening of August 25, 1950. There are also Exhibits

N-56-57 which are the reports from Reco 2 of the HMB attacks at barrio Capalad, Arayat on September 12, 1950, and at San Luis on September 13, 1950. There was found in his possession, when he was arrested, a file copy (Exh. N-202) of a letter addressed to his comrades in Regional Command No. 4, dated October 14, 1950. The original of this letter (Exh. M-292) was found at 1608-B Andalucia, apparently in transit through the National Courier Division. It should be noted that it is in 1608-B Andalucia where Salome Cruz, the Chairman of the National Courier Division, had her headquarters. In this letter appellant Maclang wrote:

          I received a letter to the SEC from Com Bonifacio, PBS, R-5, dated Oct. 10, 1950. Because of the urgency and because the Comca is leaving at 12:00 a.m. this day, I, as in charge of military matters of the SEC, in the absence of the SEC meeting I have rendered the following decision:

x x x           x x x           x x x

          ORDER: I hereby order to R-4 to take all action concerning all the requests of the letter of Com. Bonifacio to the SEC. Reject the idea of sending back these deserters (men and officers) to R-5 and I am giving full authority to R-4 to arrest and try all these said deserters. All actions should be based on our military rulings.

          The letter of Comrade Bonifacio referred to in the above-quoted letter of appellant Maclang was found in his possession at the time of his arrest. A copy of this letter was found in the possession of the appellant Jose Lava when the latter was arrested at 683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, on October 18, 1950. 33 It was shown during the trial that this letter of appellant Maclang was transcribed from the stenographic notes taken down by Julita Rodriguez on her notebook (Exh. M-31-E). This Julita Rodriguez worked as a clerk with appellant-Maclang, and she was also arrested on October 18, 1950 along with Maclang and Felipe Engreso, another employee of Maclang. Both Julita Rodriguez and Felipe Engreso were also accused in these cases. The authority of appellant Maclang on military matters is made manifest in the above-mentioned letter.

          In another letter of appellant Maclang, which was his reply to the letter he received from one Plaridel, regarding the plan for attack on November 7, 1950 celebration, 34 he said:

          Re-celebration, I am glad that you are actively preparing to achieve the SEC objectives. We have no objections on the towns that you have stated including Mcy. Our only doubt here is Mrqn, because this is very near enemy camp, however, proceed to your preparation and we will help you on intelligence operations on said localities. In this connection, we have the opinion that Com. Pacing will cooperate with you in this task as we have been informed that he is coming to your place.

          Re-request on arms and ammos, we are not yet in a position to give you the assurance of aid, however, we are dealing with the smugglers to purchase these ammos to supply such operations. Because it is not very sure, it will be better for the Recos to cooperate on the preparation of ammos.

          There are letters of appellant Maclang to Luming (Salome Cruz), one of the accused, which were presented in evidence, where he gave her orders and instructions regarding the dispatch of couriers to the regional commands and the activities of the National Courier Division. 35 Documents were also presented, which appear to have been issued or approved by the Organizational Bureau of which this appellant was the chief, dealing with the methods of improving the communication system of the CPP. 36 All these indicate that appellant Maclang had also supervision over the National Courier Division (NCD) of the CPP.

          Appellant Maclang, in his defense, denied knowledge about the HMB raids and ambushes. We find, however, overwhelming evidence that disproves his claim. The evidence clearly shows that he participated directly in planning, coordinating, supporting, and approving the HMB raids, attacks and ambushes. He was a member of the Secretariat of the CPP and participated in its meetings. He was in charge of the military affairs of the CPP; he gave orders to the Recos to attack the government forces; he approved the plans of attack against the City of Manila and towns around Manila on November 7, 1959; he received reports of HMB raids and attacks. All these make him, in contemplation of law, a leader of the rebellion.

          There is, to Us, no doubt that by the high positions he held in the CPP, appellant Federico Maclang was one of the leaders of the CPP that promoted, maintained and directed the armed operations of the HMB to overthrow the Philippine government. We agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          4. Appeal of Ramon Espiritu

          Appellant Ramon Espiritu was arrested by the agents of the MIS and the Manila Police on October 18, 1950 at 1608-B Andalucia Street, Manila, along with Salome Cruz, Rosario Vda. de Santos, Naty Cruz, Aurora Garcia, Lamberto Magboo and Josefina Adelan. He was known by the alias "Johnny".

          In his written statement, 37 he admitted that he was a member of the Politburo and the Chairman of the National Finance Committee of the CPP. The evidence shows that he was a member of the Secretariat of the CPP, and he participated in the deliberations and decisions of that body. 38 He was also one of the 15 members of the Military Committee (MC). 39 He was the Politburo and Secretariat Supervisor of the National Courier Division. 40 He had been assigned to various important positions in the CPP, like the supervision of Trade Union Division (TUD) and the trade union struggle, together with his co-accused Federico R. Maclang. 41 He was also assigned to the City Committee to reorganize the City Committee and the City Command. 42 He was likewise assigned to supervise Luming (co-accused Salome Cruz) in taking care of the sick comrades coming from provinces. 43 He attended meetings of the Communists and HMB. He was one of those who tried Huk member Domingo Clarin, assigned to the Trigger Squad of the HMB, and found him guilty of having squealed regarding the holdup of the NARIC at Pulilan. 44

          In his defense appellant Espiritu testified that he had nothing to do with the HMB raids and ambushes. Seemingly, to justify his membership in the Communist Party, this appellant

discussed the general history of labor and its unsavory relations with capital, for which he blamed the feudal economy that had pervaded the economic life of the Filipino people. He candidly recounted his efforts in trying to understand the cause of the people's economic ills, and the efforts of labor unions in demanding better wages and living conditions for laborers.

          Considering the tie-up between the CPP and the HMB, there can hardly be any question that appellant Ramon Espiritu, member of the Politburo, of the Secretariat, and of the Military Committee, of the CPP, had actively participated in promoting and maintaining the armed operations of the HMB, along with top CPP leaders, Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, and others. We agree, also, with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          5. Appeal of Salome Cruz

          Appellant Salome Cruz, wife of appellant Ramon Espiritu, was arrested on October 18, 1950 at 1608-B, Andalucia St., Manila. She was known by her two aliases: Luming, and Iluminada Calonje in her written statement, she admitted that she was the Chairman of the National Communication Division (NCD) of the CPP from November, 1949 to May, 1950. 45

          Documentary evidence shows her various positions in the CPP, namely: Acting Chief of the Central Post of the Communications Division and in charge of Sub-Posts; In-charge of Couriers; In-charge of finance from November, 1949 to May 17, 1950; In-charge of all Central Committee cadres when they came to Manila for medical attention; In-charge of sick comrades coming from provinces under the supervision of Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) in the National Commission; and Chairman of the Hospital Group to take care of the sick and wounded from the City and provinces. 46

          The evidence further shows that Salome Cruz wrote several notes and/or documents showing her activities in the National Communication Division, Hospital Group and other party organs. Thus, on July 4, 1950, she made handwritten notes on " Sub-Posts" containing names (aliases) of regular and irregular couriers of RECO 1 to 7, Dist. No. 5 and Pangasinan; on July 5, 1950, she also made notes on "Regular na Dating at alis ng mga Korriers sa NCD napunta sa bawat Recos", which show the dates of arrivals and departures of the couriers for Recos 1 to 7 Dist. No. 4 Pangasinan and Cavite; on May 5, 1950 she wrote a letter to Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) informing the latter of the arrival and departure of couriers of RECO 1 and the availability for distribution of the April 12 and 30 issues of TITIS; she also wrote letters to Beria (co-accused Federico Maclang), Payat and Fred (co-accused Federico Bautista), and Berting (co-accused Lamberto Magboo), regarding couriers and the activities of the National Communication Division (NCD). 47 She also made handwritten notes on the National Communication Division (NCD) Consolidated Report, showing the income and expenses from May 1 to May 17, 1950 of the Central Post and the Outposts; and a letter to Charing (co-accused Rosario C. Vda. de Santos) on May 17, 1950 instructing the latter to check up the Sub-Posts. 48

          In her brief, appellant Salome Cruz claimed, among other things, that the trial court erred in convicting her as principal, despite the fact that her participation was only on inconsequential details, and her guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

          There is no evidence to show that appellant Salome Cruz actually took part in the raids, attacks and ambushes perpetrated by the HMB. It cannot be said, however, that her role in the plan to overthrow the Government was inconsequential, she having been in charge of communications, transmitting orders and directives of the Politburo and Secretariat to the HMB in the field until May 1950; she being in charge of couriers, making notes of regular and irregular couriers, their arrivals and departures; she being in charge of the Hospital group to take care of the sick and wounded from the city and provinces. These facts show that she was cooperating actively in promoting and maintaining the armed activities of the HMB, considering the tie-up between the CPP and the HMB. The maintenance of communications between the top leaders of the CPP and the units operating in the field is very essential in the success of the rebellion. It is in this connection that this appellant played a very important role.

          We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Salome Cruz is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and she should be punished accordingly.

          6. Appeal of Rosario C. Vda. de Santos

          Appellant Rosario C. Vda. de Santos was arrested by the agents of the MIS and the Manila Police, together with co-accused Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Naty Cruz, Aurora Garcia, Lamberto Magboo, and Josefina Adelan, in these five cases, at 1608-B Andalucia, Sampaloc, Manila, on October 18, 1950.

          The evidence shows that:

          Appellant Rosario C. Vda. de Santos uses the alias "Charing". In her testimony, however, she claims that her real name is Aurelia Cayetano. She was designated by the Secretariat of the CPP In-charge of Outpost of the National Communication Division, with the duty to maintain discipline among couriers coming from without. 49 She worked under Salome Cruz (Luming) who was the Chairman of the National Communications Division (NCD) of the CPP. This appellant was in charge of checking the irregular couriers for Regional Commands, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Pangasinan. 50 She was a staff member of the NCD, and she participated in the NCD meetings, took down minutes, and rendered reports. She made reports to the head of the NCD. One such report says: 51

          Naisasagawang maayos na pagtanggap sa lahat ng dumating at maayos na pagalis ng couriers.

          Another report was that one she made on July 12, 1950, about the outpost: 52

(a) Reco 1, means of communication still good and 2 couriers arrived June 25 and departed July 4.

(b) Reco 2, — The road is still clear and the couriers of Pangasinan were already established there, thru Com. Piping.

(c) Reco 3 — The road is difficult that is the reason why the Post at San Jose is no longer used but that of San Rafael.

(d) Reco 4 — The road is difficult connection severed but D-4 is already connected. (Exh. 159-162).

          As chief of the Outpost, she made, on August 19, 1950, the following report: 53

(a) Reco 1 — Couriers did not arrive, so no report.

(b) Reco 2 — Couriers arrived as the PC are out daily in the field ....

(c) Reco 3 — Road is also difficult.

(d) Reco 4 — Road is not difficult, but no definite Post for the couriers.

(e) District No. 4 — 2 weeks no arrival of couriers but special couriers in Com. Amat (now under arrest) arrived on 12 July '50.

(f) Cavite — Did not arrive last Sunday while the agreement was Saturday.

          In a letter to her co-accused Luming (Salome Cruz), she stated that she knew the circumstances surrounding the killing, and the murderers of Norberto Icasiano, Mayor of Bulacan. 54 She even mentioned that she met the deceased's brother in a school house in Malolos, Bulacan, and that she had to hide her face behind her umbrella in order to avoid being recognized.

          Various documents were shown during the trial which were written by her, and that they were written during meetings of the leaders of the CPP. 55

          In her defense, this appellant testified that her co-accused Ramon Espiritu requested her to stay with him as a household help with a salary of P10.00 a month; that besides preparing food, she was also assigned the duty of recording the letters delivered to and received at that place; that her real name is Aurelia Cayetano, but she was using the name of Rosario C. Vda. de Santos because she was a wanted woman by the Japanese during the occupation for having aided the guerillas, and she was known by that name among her friends even after the liberation. She admitted that the name "Charing" was hers, but claimed that she did not know the persons writing to her and that they were writing to her because she was the one always in the house.

          We find it proven that this appellant was a staff member of the National Courier (or Communication) Division of the CPP, and that she checked and made reports on the arrival and dispatch of couriers. The lower court declared her guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. In Our appraisal of the evidence, however, We find that she was merely executing the orders or commands of others who are superior to her in the

organizational set-up of the CPP. Considering that her activities took place while the CPP was underground, and during the period when the armed operations of the HMB were taking place, We find her guilty as a mere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and should be punished accordingly.

          7. Appeal of Angel Baking

          Appellant Angel Baking was arrested by the agents of the MIS and of the Manila Police in his office at Room 504 Samanillo Building, Escolta, Manila, on October 19, 1950, along with Marciano de Leon who is also one of the accused in these cases. His house at No. 1518 Calixto Dayco, Paco, Manila, was also raided. From his office and his residence many books, documents, and other papers were seized, which proved that this appellant was a confirmed communist and was having close connections with leaders of the CPP. Some of the books found in his residence are: "The Third Five Year Plan" by V. Molotov; "Reminiscence of Lenin" by C. Zetkin; Marx and Engels (Selected correspondence); "Heroic Lenin-grad"; "Theory of the Agrarian Question (Lenin); "Stalin" (G. I. R., James; "Constitution of the Kirghis Soviet Socialist Republic"; "The Class Struggle in France"; "Biographical Compilation of Communist Leaders outside the Soviet Unions", etc. There are also found reading materials labelled: "Comparative Outlines of Communism and Capitalism showing advantages of communistic ideology"; "Blue Record containing outline of the Taruc story" (this contains draft of Taruc story for filming and publication); "Political Economy" (typewritten — this was shown to be used as text for HMB studies); "Stalin and the National Colonial Question" by John Blake; etc.

          We find, by the evidence, that:

          Appellant Angel Baking used the aliases: Bayan, B. and Boriz. He joined the communist party in April, 1949, although he had been identified with the leaders of the CPP since the early part of 1944. 56 He had been associated with top communists like Jorge Frianeza, Luis Taruc, Federico Bautista, Simeon Rodriguez and Jose Lava. When the Technological Group (TG) of the CPP was organized, it was placed under the immediate supervision of Boriz (Angel Baking) although the final supervision was under Greg (Jose Lava). 57

          In the meeting of the Secretariat of the CPP on September 29, 1950, the attendance of Boriz in the meeting of the Military Committee was discussed, and it appears in the record: "Com. Boriz is a competent technologist, is ready to go out and ready to stay in the field as the Party decides." 58 The Secretariat of the CPP assigned him to head the Special Warfare Division under the GHQ. 59 As head of the Special Warfare Division under the GHQ, appellant Angel Baking wrote a memorandum for the Secretariat regarding the immediate installation of a wireless communication system between the GHQ and the Secretariat. Some paragraphs of the memorandum read as follows:

          Briefly the main point to be dealt with pertains to equipment, its procurement, technical description, distribution, installation, operation and maintenance; technical personnel who will participate in the solution of the technical aspects of the

problems; the Code system, which is an integral part of the WCS; and the non-technical implications of the problems.

          Because of the underground nature of the system, several problems not met in the legal installation of this system creep to the surface. The equipment itself is conditioned by abnormal factors which are not met ordinarily; the personnel is difficult to enlist; and the installation, operation and maintenance of the system become unduly handicapped and difficult to perform.

          Since the transmitting unit in Manila cannot be fully used without risking its immediate detection by the enemy, transmissions to the field from HQ (Manila) may partly be coursed thru the legitimate radio stations. This has always been done before, and there is no reason why it cannot be developed now. The essential requirements for this measure would be:

          (1) A cadre to infiltrate the Corps of broadcasters in the radio stations, which may be assigned to the Cultural Group. This cadre should get a position as broadcaster at specific hours, either as station announcer or newscaster for the newspaper or time buyers at the stations;

          (2) This cadre should be given a code system thru which whatever message to be transmitted, may be coursed.60

Appellant Baking admitted having prepared the foregoing draft but he claimed, in his testimony, that draft was prepared way back in May 1948 at the request of one Jorge Frianesa who was a ranking member of the CCP. It appears, however, that when his office in the Samanillo building was raided by the agents of the MIS and the Manila Police this document was found torn inside a waste basket, and this circumstance made the lower court conclude that he wrote the draft not in 1948 but shortly before the raid on October 19, 1950. The lower court further pointed out that his explanation was filmsy because of the numerous evidence which showed that he supervised the Technological Group and the Special Warfare Division at the GHQ of the CCP. We agree with the conclusions of the lower court in this respect.

          Besides there were found in his office at Room 504 Samanillo Building at the time of the raid several U.S. Army technical manuals on Cipher Systems and Advanced Military Cryptography, and these manuals have connection with the recommendation in his memorandum for the use of the code system for transmitting messages thru legitimate radio stations.

          There are still other documents which clearly indicate appellant Baking's cooperation with the leaders of the CCP in the furtherance of the plan to seize power. In the document, marked Exhibit L-33s, he made the following statement:

          To forestall errors in the planning for the future, the training of leading Cadres as economists should be intensified. It is more than likely that by the time CCP seized power, the struggle in Asia shall have been resolved.

          There was found in the possession of Simeon G. Rodriguez (one of the appellants in these cases), the document marked Exhibit O-254 where it appears that appellant Angel Baking acknowledged having received from the National Finance Committee of the CCP the sum of P45.00 for the Technological Group (TG) of which he was a member. Simeon G. Rodriguez is a member of the National Finance Committee of the CCP.

          At the time of his arrest, appellant Angel Baking was a foreign affairs officer in the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines. That he was using his position in the Department of Foreign Affairs for intelligence work — and the lower court calls this a manifestation of his "scheming mind" — may be gathered from what he wrote in his diary as follows:

          There was a tactical error in my transfer to the new office room. The office was supposed to be occupied by ambassadors and high-ranking officials. I transferred to it without insuring my hold on the important men of the department. Thus I opened my flank and left my rear unprotected, and made myself extremely vulnerable.

          Because of this, I find myself unprepared to handle that problem. Peter ordered Quiamco that I be transferred back to where I came from.

          I also forgot that the important thing to remember is the unbroken and steady ....

          AGB (Exh. L-78e).

          There is another document found in Baking's residence at 518-B Calixto Dayco which was admitted by him to be his. This document contains entries which indicate his dealings with the CCP organizations and its members. The entries are as follows:

NFC ....................................... P200

Graciano ....................................... 190

Graciano ....................................... 100

Apolinario

....................................... 100

Talas ....................................... 100

SGR ....................................... 20

Abe ....................................... 50

Godong ....................................... 50

Lake ....................................... 50

Mario ....................................... 50

Lamang ....................................... 450

          The "NFC" has been shown to stand for National Finance Committee of the CCP, and "SGR" for Simeon G. Rodriguez, a member of the NFC of the CCP, who is also one of the appellants in the present cases. There were sheets of blank papers seized from 742 Colorado Street, Manila, the printing office of TITIS and the working place of Cesario Torres, also one of the appellants in the present cases, bearing signatures of "Apolinario", "Mariano P. Balgos" and "Luis Taruc".

          Considering the facts We have hereinabove-stated, We have no doubt in our mind that appellant Angel Baking as a confirmed communist, had aided in the efforts of the leaders of the CPP to promote and maintain the armed operations of the HMB to overthrow the government. The lower court found this appellant guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. We have noted that the role played by this appellant was that of a technician or adviser. Considering that he participated in the rebellion efforts of the CPP while he was holding a public office. We agree with the finding of the lower court, and he should be punished under the first paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code.

          8. Appeal of Lamberto Magboo

          Appellant Lamberto Magboo was arrested by the agents of the MIS and of the Manila Police at 1608-B Andalucia, Manila, on October 18, 1950, along with the accused Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Rosario C. Vda. de Santos, Naty Cruz, Aurora Garcia and Josefina Adelan. It must be noted that the place, 1608-B Andalucia, is the headquarters of Salome Cruz who was the Chief of the National Courier Division of the CPP. The evidence shows that the other persons who were arrested in that place namely, Naty Cruz, and Josefina Adelan worked as couriers under Salome Cruz. Rosario C. Vda. de Santos also worked under Salome Cruz as in-charge of outpost. Aurora Garcia was employed by her aunt, Rosario Vda. de Santos, as a maid and that she was selling the TITIS.

          The evidence shows that:

          Appellant Lamberto Magboo used the aliases Berting and Eddie. He admitted that he was a courier of the CPP, and that he actually mailed letters and packages at the Bureau of Posts and at the post office at the Far Eastern University; and he delivered letters, boxes of medicines, canned goods, lanterns, and shoes, from 1608-B Andalucia Street (house of appellant Salome Cruz) to the La Mallorca Bus station, to the LTB station, at Altura Street, Sta. Mesa, at Divisoria Street, and at Celeridad Street in Pasay City. 61 He was a checker of the regular and irregular couriers of Recos 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and Dist. No. 4 Pangasinan, and was also a special courier of Dist. No. 4, c/o Reco 4. 62

          Considering that the Recos are the units of the CPP that are operating with the HMB in the field, such that the person who acts as courier from the headquarters of the National Courier Division of the CPP in Manila to these Recos was actually working and cooperating with the armed operations to overthrow the government. We find appellant Lamberto Magboo guilty as a mere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion, under the

second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and he should be punished accordingly.

          9. Appeal of Nicanor Razon, Sr.

          Appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr., known also by the alias Elias Rubi, admitted that he had been a member of the CPP since July 1, 1945. Among the documents found at 1608-B Andalucia, Sampaloc, Manila, was the cadre registration and oath of this appellant as a member of the CPP. He was the secretary of Barangay I SECCOM (Sectional Committee) II of the District of Tondo, and later rose to the position of treasurer in the same committee. He helped in distributing the TITIS, the official organ of the CPP. 63

          The record does not show that this appellant had testified in his behalf, nor presented any evidence in his defense. In his brief before this Court, however, this appellant claims that the lower court erred in finding him guilty as an accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion, no evidence having been adduced to show that he had performed any act, which would constitute a cooperation in promoting the rebellion jointly undertaken by the CPP and the HMB.

          We find merit in the contention of this appellant. We find that the evidence against this appellant only shows that he is a member of the Communist Party, and that he had been secretary and later treasurer of SECCOM II of the District of Tondo. There is no evidence regarding his actual participation in the efforts of the leaders of the CPP and the HMB to promote the rebellion. His having distributed the TITIS, the official organ of the CPP, is at most an act in the category of a propaganda which in itself does not show that he advocated actual uprising against the Government. It has not been shown that he collaborated in the efforts to advance the cause of the rebellion. The fact that he is a member of the Communist Party and an officer of one of its committees is not a sufficient basis for declaring him guilty as an accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion.

          In the case of People vs. Hernandez, G. R. Nos. L-6025-6026 this Court held:

          ... We do not believe that mere membership in the Communist Party or in the CLO renders the members liable either of rebellion or of conspiracy to commit rebellion, because mere membership and nothing more merely implied advocacy of abstract theory or principle without any action being induced thereby; and that such advocacy becomes criminal only if it is coupled with action or advocacy of action, namely actual rebellion or conspiracy to commit rebellion, or acts conducive thereto or evincing the same.

          We, therefore, declare that appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr. is not guilty as an accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion, nor can We hold him guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion. He should, therefore, be absolved of the charge against him in the information.

          Neither can We find him guilty of having committed a crime under the Anti-Subversion Law (R.A. No. 1700) which outlaws the Communist Party of the Philippines, because this law was enacted only in the year 1957, whereas the information against this appellant was

filed on October 27, 1950. Again, in the case of People vs. Hernandez, supra, this Court held:

          On the other hand, Rep. Act 1700, known as the Anti-Subversion Act, which penalizes membership in any organization or association committed to subvert the Government, cannot be applied to the appellants because said Act was approved on June 20, 1957 and was not in force at the time of the commission of the acts charged against appellants (committed 1945-1950); the Anti-Subversion Act punishes participation or membership in an organization committed to overthrow the duly constituted Government, a crime distinct from that of actual rebellion with which appellants are charged.

          10. Appeal of Marcos Medina

          Appellant Marcos Medina was arrested by MIS agents on October 17, 1950 at 1028-B, Quezon Boulevard. He used the alias Hiwara. He admitted in his written statement 64 that he was a member of the Hukbalahap Squadron 25 with headquarters at Kandating, Candaba; that he became a corporal of the Huks in 1944; and that he was a member of the Organizational Committee, Reco 4, Laguna, from 1946 to 1949. 65 In 1949, he studied at the Central Institute of Technology, and while studying, he used to help HMB couriers Lydia (alias of Alicia Villegas), and Celong (alias of Marcelino Calma) in carrying things for delivery to Commander REG of Reco 4. 66In his testimony he stated that the Organizational Committee, of which he was a member, had the duty to go to the barrios to teach and convince the people to join the HMB. 67

          Testifying in his behalf, this appellant said that he was maltreated at Camp Murphy to make him sign the statement marked as Exhibits EE to EE-4. 68 However, Sotero Morales, who was the one who investigated him, testified that Marcos Medina did not complain of any maltreatment when he was investigated. 69

          We do not agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. There is no evidence that he actually participated in any of the raids and ambushes alleged in the information although he admitted that he was a Huk. The evidence shows that he simply helped HMB couriers. We hold, however, that his being a member of the HMB is a sufficient basis to find him guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion, punishable under Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code. In the case of People vs. Hernandez, supra, this Court held:.

          On the other hand, membership in the HMB (Hukbalahap), implies participation in an actual uprising or rebellion to secure, as the Huks pretend, the liberation of the peasants and laboring class from thraldom. By membership in the HMB, one already advocates uprising and the use of force, and by such membership he agrees or conspires that force be used to secure the ends of the party. Such membership, therefore, even if there is nothing more, renders the member guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion punishable by law.

          And when a Huk member, not content with his membership, does anything to promote the ends of the rebellion like soliciting contributions, or acting as courier, he

thereby becomes guilty of conspiracy, unless he takes to the field and joins in the rebellion of uprising, in which latter case he commits rebellion.

          We therefore declare appellant Marcos Medina guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          11. Appeal of Cesario Torres

          Appellant Cesario Torres was arrested by the agents of the MIS and the Manila Police on October 19, 1950 at his residence at 742 Colorado St., Manila, along with his wife, Rosenda Canlas Torres, and his co-accused, Arturo Baking. From his house the agents seized subversive documents, and articles including a typewriter, a mimeographing machine, mimeographing ink, stencils, coupon bond papers. Some of these coupon bond papers were blank but bore the signature of Luis M. Taruc.

          The evidence shows that:

          Appellant Cesario Torres used the aliases: Leo and Leodones, and he was also known as Cesario Yacat Torres. He admitted being a member of the HMB and of the CPP, that he was head of the Technical Office under the Propaganda Branch of the CPP, and as the head of that office he was in charge of typing and mimeographing the CPP documents and leaflets, and the TITIS which was the official organ of the CPP. 70

          Documents were presented during the trial which clearly prove that this appellant was in regular communication with Federico Maclang, one of the top leaders of the CPP and of the rebellion. Thus, in one letter, he explained to Maclang why the issue of the TITIS for the previous week did not come out; and in another letter he informed Maclang that he would try to make the TITIS come out every Sunday morning. 71 In a letter to Maclang dated April 6, 1950, he inquired for the number of copies of "Suliranin ng mga Familia" that should be printed; and in another letter he was requesting from Maclang P18.40 for the printing of 600 copies of the "Mapagpalaya", the official organ of the HMB. 72 Using the name Leodones, this appellant wrote subversive poems calculated to arouse popular support for the cause of the CPP and the HMB. One such poem, entitled "Ang Dalawangpung Taon Buhay ng PKP", eulogized the CPP, advocated armed revolt against the government and the liquidation of Liberals, Nacionalistas, and priests. The other poems were "Gumising Ka Kabataan", "Maiksing Kasaysayan ng Kilusang Magbubukid sa Filipinas", "Ang Ikawalong Taong Kaarawan ng Hukbong Magpapalaya ng Bayan", and "Ang Sigaw ng Bayan Api". All these poems were published in the different issues of the TITIS. 73

          We find that appellant Cesario Torres played a very vital role in the promotion of the armed struggle that was jointly prosecuted by the CPP and the HMB. He was admittedly a member of both the CPP and the HMB. His membership with the HMB alone is a sufficient basis to hold him guilty of the crime of conspiring to commit rebellion. We believe, however, that he did more than to conspire with the leaders of the HMB and the CPP to commit rebellion. He was in charge of the publication and circulation of the TITIS which was the official organ the CPP, and of the "Mapagpalaya" which was the official organ of the HMB. It is through these two organs that the people were being aroused to support the armed struggle against the government. While it is true that this appellant did not go to the field to

take up arms, the provocative poems and articles that he wrote and published in the official organs of the CPP and the HMB were just as effective to prosecute the rebellion as the guns and other weapons used by the HMB in the field.

          We agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          12. Appeal of Arturo Baking

          Appellant Arturo Baking was arrested by the agents of MIS and the Manila Police on October 19, 1950 at 742 Colorado St., Manila, along with his co-accused Cesario Torres and the latter's wife, Rosenda Canlas Torres. He is the nephew of appellant Angel Baking.

          It is shown by the evidence that:

          Appellant Arturo Baking used the aliases Red Bell, Eduardo Santos, Arturo Calma and Ed. He became a member of the CPP in December 1949. 74 In August 1950 he was employed by his co-accused Cesario Torres as assistant in the publication center of the CPP at 742 Colorado St., Manila. He was one of those assigned as typist in the Educational Department of the CPP, it having been admitted by him that the publication center was under the Educational Department of the CPP. As assistant to Cesario Torres he helped in the printing, mimeographing and distribution of the TITIS, the official organ of the CPP; as well as in the printing, mimeographing and distribution of HMB documents. His work included the procurement of office supplies, and the keeping of records of CPP documents that had been printed and distributed to the different officials and organizational units of the CPP.75 This appellant had studied and finished the prescribed secondary course of the Communist Party, and was given a certificate, "Katibayan sa Pagaaral", attesting to his having satisfactorily completed such subjects as the "History of National Liberation Movement", "Dialektika ng Materialismo", "Political Economy", "Estado at Himagsikan", and "Ang Pagkakatatag ng Partido". 76 By his own declaration this appellant admitted having made studies about communism, took rigid tests in order to be accepted to the CPP, and that he believed a communist government should be implanted in the Philippines. In his testimony, he stated that he had developed a deep-seated hatred against the agents of the law because of the predatory acts that were committed by them on poor fishermen, and that on several occasions, especially at various checkpoints, he saw the harsh treatment done by the Constabulary soldiers to civilians. He bewailed the graft and corruption in the government. 77

          We have no doubt that this appellant is a confirmed communist, and that he was in full sympathy with the armed struggle being promoted by the leaders of the CPP and the HMB in order to overthrow the existing government of the Philippines. Upon appraisal of the evidence, however, We cannot agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. We find that he was the assistant of appellant Cesario Torres, who was entrusted with the publication and distribution of the official organs of the CPP and the HMB, as well as of the printing and distribution of the documents of these two organizations. Being an assistant of appellant Cesario Tores whom We have declared to be a principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, We hold that appellant Arturo Baking is guilty as a mere participant in the

commission of the crime of rebellion, under the second paragraph of the Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and he should be punished accordingly.

          13. Appeal of Simeon G. Rodriguez

          Appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez was arrested by the agents of the MIS and the Manila Polioe in his house at 683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, on October 18, 1950, along with Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Victorina G. Rodriguez and Pedro Vicencio.

          The evidence shows that:

          Appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez used two aliases: Lakindanum (Laquindanum) and Sammy. He was a member of the National Finance Committee of the CPP since October 21, 1949. 78 When he was arrested on October 18, 1950 there were found in his house some P42,376.00 in paper currency in different denominations. Of the money that was found in his house, it was conclusively shown that 65 P100-bills, 60 P50-bills, P145.00 in PNB circulating notes and $310.00 formed part of the money that were taken from the office of the Provincial Treasurer in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, when the HMB raided that town in the night of August 26, 1950. We have stated at the early part of this opinion that on the night of August 26, 1950 some 400 Huks raided Sta. Cruz. The cashier of the office of the Provincial Treasurer was forced by the Huks at gun point to open the vault of the provincial treasury from which the Huks took some P80,600.00. It happened that the Provincial Treasurer of Laguna, Mr. Balbino Kabigting, had a record of the serial numbers of the paper money that was deposited in the provincial treasury which were taken by the Huks, and after that raid Mr. Kabigting even issued a warning to the public about the loss of the money — mentioning in the warning the serial numbers of the money taken. It was found out that the serial numbers of the 65 P100-bills, of the 60 P50-bills, of the P145.00 PNB circulating notes, and of the $310 found in the house of appellant Rodriguez tallied with the serial numbers of the paper currency that was taken from the provincial treasury of Laguna. This appellant, in his testimony, declared that the paper money whose serial numbers tallied with those paper money that were taken from the provincial treasury of Laguna formed part of the money that Jose Lava (one of the appellant herein) brought to his house. Considering the high position that appellant Lava held in the CPP and the fact that the armed operations of the HMB were promoted and directed by the Secretariat of the CPP, of which Lava was a member, and the fact that appellant Simeon Rodriguez was a member of the National Finance Committee, it is easy to understand why Jose Lava brought to this appellant that money which was taken by the HMB from the provincial treasury of Laguna. Significantly, one of the evidence presented during the trial was a receipt, dated October 5, 1950, signed by Lakindanum in favor of Com. Torres (Casto Alejandrino, a well-known HMB commander) of Reco 4, acknowledging receipt of P32,740, $310, and P145 in PNB circulating notes. 79 It could be that Jose Lava made Rodriguez prepare that receipt when he delivered the money, and the receipt was intended to be sent to Com. Torres to assure the latter that the money was delivered to Rodriguez. That receipt was among the papers seized when these appellants were arrested. This is a clear indication of the connection of appellant Simeon Rodriguez to the armed operations of the HMB, and the coordinated work of the leaders of the CPP and of the HMB in the armed uprising.

          There are other documents clearly indicating the connection of appellant Rodriguez to the HMB commanders in the field: (1) There is a letter dated October 13, 1950, addressed to Com. Lakindanum (Simeon G. Rodriguez) coming from Com. Torres (Casto Alejandrino) wherein the latter acknowledged receipt of the letter and articles that were sent to him by Com. Lakindanum. This letter also instructed Lakindanum not to send the watches to Reco 4. 80 (2) There is another letter dated October 13, 1950, of Com. Lanao, addressed to Com. Lakindanum, wherein the former was requisitioning from Lakindanum a radio set. In this letter Com. Lanao, among others, said: "We would make the attempt to provide you with an extra ration of camote leaves when you visit us again". 81 This statement in the letter of Com. Lanao indicates that appellant Simeon Rodriguez used to visit the men in the field. (3) There is still another letter that came from Com. Amor, addressed to Com. Lakindanum, wherein the former acknowledged receipt of all the things, including a radio tester costing P30.00, that the latter had sent to him. 82(4) Then there is a letter written by herein appellant to Com. Beria (Federico Maclang) stating that he delivered the tester to Com. Reg in the absence from camp of Com. Torres. 83 (5) There is a receipt showing that appellant Rodriguez signed in the name of the National Finance Committee, acknowledging receipt of the amount of P705.00. 84 (6) There is still another receipt signed by herein appellant acknowledging receipt of P1,200 from the National Finance Committee, which was prepared for accounting purposes. 85

          This appellant admitted, in his testimony, his close association with Jose Lava. He also said that he was inclined to believe in the tenets of communism and the use of force in case the people decide to take political power in their hands.

          We have carefully examined the evidence of the prosecution against this appellant, and also the evidence which he presented in his defense — consisting of his own testimony mainly denying the positive evidences against him and of the testimonies of witnesses vouching for his good character and the fact that he was a businessman — and We have arrived at the conclusion that this appellant is one of the top communist leaders who had promoted and maintained the armed operations of the HMB in the field. We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion; and he should be punished accordingly.

          14. Appeal of Marciano de Leon

          Appellant Marciano de Leon was arrested, together with Angel Baking at Room 504, Samanillo Building, Escolta, Manila, on October 19, 1950. He used the aliases Mar and Marcial. At the time of his arrest, he worked in the Personnel Section at the Headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary. He admitted having supplied his co-accused Federico Bautista with government documents and confidential information regarding the HMB from the PC Headquarters. These were: 86

1. Memorandum to all PC Commander re Huk infiltration.

2. Memorandum to all PC Commanders re Loyalty Status of all PC personnel.

3. Memorandum on PC-Civilian Relations.

4. List of PC Agents and their addresses.

5. List of persons wanted by the PC.

6. Letter on the subject: "Yellow Journalism."

7. U.S. Army Technical Manuals and Field Manuals.

          We concur with what the lower court said about this appellant: "Considering the nature of the documents he admitted in his confession to have been furnished by him to Federico Bautista, the contents of his confession and the accessibility to him of those documents by reason of his position in the Personnel Section of the Philippine Constabulary, the Court is inclined to believe that he also took part in the conspiracy to overthrow the government by armed struggle and did his bit by furnishing Federico Bautista with information and records regarding the HMB activities obtainable from the PC Headquarters." We do not agree with the lower court, however, that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. Considering the top position of Federico Bautista in the CPP hierarchy, it cannot be denied that appellant Marciano de Leon, by giving the information hereinabove stated to Federico Bautista, had cooperated or helped in the prosecution of the armed rebellion. We hold this appellant guilty as a mere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion, under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and should be punished accordingly.

          15. Appeal of Honofre Mangila

          We find, by the evidence, that:

          Appellant Honofre Mangila was arrested on November 22, 1950 at 215 Leveriza, Pasay City. He used thealiases Miller and Tommy. He admitted being a communist — in fact, he said he was proud to be a communist — and being a member of the Central Committee of the CPP. He was also a member of the Trade Union Division (TUD) of the CPP. In the meeting of the Secretariat of the CPP on September 1, 1950, appellant Mangila was appointed auditor of funds and books of account of the National Finance Commission (NFC). 87 He actually audited the financial statements of the NFC for the months of April, May and June, 1950; Mangila's auditing of the National Finance Commission's account was approved by the Secretariat in its meeting of September 22, 1950. He was also the chairman of the organizational department (OD) for Manila under the Organizational Bureau of the CPP. 88

          There is no question that this appellant is one of the top men in the hierarchy of the CPP. He was a member of the Central Committee which is the body second only to the National Congress of the CPP. When the National Congress is not in session it is this Central Committee that makes decisions for the party. While testifying in his behalf he revealed his strong communist party discipline when he declined to reveal, upon being cross-examined, the identity of the other members of the Central Committee, and the members of the National Congress and of the Politburo. While testifying he was very outspoken in indicting the existing economic and social order in the country, and asserted that it is only under the Communist Party when the laboring class can expect a bright future.

          During the trial letters signed by "Miller" or "Tommy", were presented in evidence. Those were letters addressed to Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) and to Luming (Salome Cruz) concerning financial matters, meetings and other activities in the CPP. 89

          Considering that it is the CPP, as We have shown, that promotes and maintains the armed operations of the HMB against the government, and considering that appellant Honofre Mangila is a member of the Central Committee which is the most powerful body in the CPP when its National Congress is not in session, and considering further that this appellant was even appointed auditor to audit the funds of the CPP, We believe that this appellant is one of the principal leaders of the rebellion as charged in the information. We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Honofre Mangila is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion and that he should be punished accordingly.

          16. Appeal of Cenon Bungay

          We find, by the evidence, that:

          Appellant Cenon Bungay was arrested by Vicente Roco of the 20th BCT and some members of the Manila Police on November 21, 1950, at 432 Isabel, Sampaloc, Manila. This appellant used the alias Rufing.

          In written statements, he admitted that he joined the Huks in 1946, and at the time of his arrest on November 21, 1950 he was the commander of the HMB in the province of Batangas and the G-3 of Field Command (FC) No. 3 of the HMB. While testifying in open court, he declared that as the HMB commander he had 1,300 fully armed men (equivalent to 4 HMB battalions) under him, and as a Huk commander he had been receiving directives from the higher authorities of the HMB. He revealed that Luis Taruc was the Supreme of the HMB. 90 He also admitted his direct participation in an encounter between the HMB and the government forces in Plaridel, Bulacan, on March 27, 1950. He stated that in obedience to an order from Regional Command No. 4, he led his unit in the raid of San Pablo City on March 29, 1950, resulting in the death of Maj. Alicbusan. He said that their purpose was to overthrow the government by force, and to establish the "New Democracy." 91 He also declared that he joined the Huks in 1942 because of poverty; that his parents were tenants in Hacienda Bahay Pare at Candaba, Pampanga; that he stopped schooling after the 7th grade in order to help support his parents and ten brothers and sisters; that realizing the miserable conditions of the tenants, he joined the "Aguman Ding Talapagobra" (ADT), the aim of which was the amelioration of the tenants; that through this organization he realized that the tenants must organize to promote their welfare and to prevent the abuses of landlords. He further declared that in spite of the sacrifices of the Huks for 3 years during the Japanese occupation, the Huks representing the countless tenants, were ignored by the U.S. armed forces and by the Commonwealth Government; and having been harassed, persecuted and frustrated in their aims to ameliorate the condition of the masses, the Huks went underground. According to him the Huks felt more persecuted when Luis Taruc, the successful congressional candidate in 1946 of the Democratic Alliance, was denied his seat in Congress, and that they lost faith in the government due to the frauds and terrorism perpetrated in the elections that followed. 92

          Appellant Bungay admitted that the HMB had to use force in order to change the administration. He said that the men under him used arms given by the American soldiers and Communist sympathizers. He also revealed that while he was the Huk commander at Cavite, he had two encounters with government forces, one at Aliang, Malabon on February 18, 1950; and the other at Alfonso, Cavite, on February 22, 1950. These admissions were fully corroborated by Benjamin Advincula, a ranking officer and Secretary of Reco Command No. 4 of the HMB and by Ronald Dorsey, a former Huk member. 93

          There is no doubt that Cenon Bungay, as Huk commander, was also a leader in the rebellion. We agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          17. Appeal of Pedro T. Vicencio

          Appellant Pedro T. Vicencio was arrested on October 18, 1950 at 683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, along with Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Simeon Rodriguez and Victorina Rodriguez. He was also known as Pedring. In a statement, signed by him at Camp Murphy after his arrest, he admitted that he used to run errands, bringing foodstuffs, medicines and other supplies intended for the HMB, and also delivering packages that were labelled R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5, which stood for Reco-1, Reco-2, etc., respectively, to Andalucia Street where Rosario Vda. de Santos received them. 94 We have found, in this decision, that Rosario Vda. de Santos was working under Salome Cruz who was the chairman of the National Communications Division (NCD) of the CPP, and that she was in charge of an outpost, checking the irregular couriers for Recos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Pangasinan, and she was staying at 1608-B Andalucia, Sampaloc, Manila.

          Testifying in his own behalf, appellant Vicencio denied being a member of the CPP nor of the HMB, although he stated that at the time of his arrest, he was studying the principles of communism, and that he sympathized with the Huks. At the time of his arrest this appellant was 20 years old, and he was a first year Liberal Arts student. He admitted in his testimony that he delivered to Angel Baking notes sent by Simeon Rodriguez. 95

          While it is not shown that this appellant actually took part in the armed operations of the HMB, his having delivered foodstuffs, medicines and other supplies which were intended for the HMB, and his having delivered packages to Rosario Vda. de Santos who was in charge of the outpost where couriers go to deliver, or to get, letters or articles intended for RECOS in the field, clearly indicate that this appellant was actively cooperating in the efforts of those promoting the rebellion. Being 20 years of age and a college student, it can be expected that he knew that he was doing something for the communists and the Huks. More so, because he was living with Simeon G. Rodriguez, one of the top leaders of the CPP. He admitted having delivered notes sent by Simeon Rodriguez to Angel Baking, another top leader of the CPP. The house of Rodriguez was the meeting place of CPP leaders.lawphil.ñet

          We find this appellant guilty as a mere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion, under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and he should be punished accordingly.

          18. Appeal of Felipe Engreso

          Appellant Felipe Engreso was arrested on October 18, 1950 at 1938 Int. 7, Felix Huertas St., Manila, along with Federico Maclang and Julita Rodriguez. At the time of his arrest, he was about 15 years old, and was living as a houseboy of one known to him as Ambrosio Reyes.

          It appears that in a written statement that he signed before the MIS agents, this appellant admitted having delivered letters to Mr. Espiritu (Ramon Espiritu) at Andalucia St., Manila; to Cesar (Cesario Torres) at 742 Colorado, Manila; and to Gaston (Jose Lava) at Celeridad St., Pasay City. It also appears in that statement that he used to get the TITIS from Colorado St. (residence of Cesario Torres and the CPP publication center) to deliver them to Andalucia Street (residence of Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz and Rosario Vda. de Santos) and retained one copy for Ambrosio Reyes. 96

          Testifying in his behalf, appellant Engreso declared that before his arrest he never knew that his master, Ambrosio Reyes, is the accused Federico Maclang. He came to know his master to be Federico Maclang only when they were already detained at Muntinglupa. 97

          Upon a careful study of the evidence against this appellant, We have come to the conclusion that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This appellant was only around 15 years old. We accept his testimony that he did not know that his master was Federico Maclang, and that all the time he knew him to be Ambrosio Reyes. He was simply a houseboy of Maclang. He had to obey orders to deliver letters or deliver copies of TITIS. There is no showing that he knew the contents of the letters that he was made to deliver, or that he knew the addressees to be communists. The Solicitor General recommends the acquittal of this appellant upon the ground that there is no sufficient evidence to show his criminal intent. We agree with the Solicitor General. We, therefore, acquit appellant Felipe Engreso of the charge against him in the information.

x x x           x x x           x x x

          IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby, modified, as follows:

          1. In G.R. No. L-4974

          Appellants Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz and Angel Baking are found guilty as principals in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and every one of them is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ten (10) years of prision mayor, and a fine of P20,000, with the accessories provided by law, but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay their proportionate shares of the costs.

          Appellant Rosario C. Vda. de Santos is found guilty as a participant in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and she is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of seven (7)

years and four (4) months of prision mayor, with the accessories provided by law, and to pay her proportionate share of the costs.

          2. In G.R. No. L-4975

          Appellant Cesario Torres is found guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision mayor, and a fine of P20,000, with the accessories provided by law, but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

          Appellants Lamberto Magboo and Arturo Baking are found guilty as participants in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and every one of them is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, with the accessories provided by law, and to pay their proportionate shares of the costs.

          Appellant Marcos Medina is found guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion under Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of five (5) years, four (4) months, and twenty (20) days of prision correccional and a fine of P2,000, with the accessories provided by law, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

          Appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr. is hereby acquitted, with costs de oficio.

          3. In G.R. No. L-4976

          Appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez is found guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision mayor and a fine of P20,000, with the accessories provided by law, but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

          Appellant Marciano de Leon is found guilty as a participant in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor with the accessories provided by law, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

          4. In G.R. No. L-4977

          Appellants Honofre Mangila and Simeon Bungay are found guilty as principals in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and every one of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ten (1O) years of prision mayor, and a fine of P20,000, with the accessories provided by law, but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay their proportionate shares of the costs.

          5. In G.R. No. L-4978

          Appellant Pedro T. Vicencio is found guilty as a participant in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, with the accessories provided by law, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

          Appellant Felipe Engreso is hereby acquitted, with costs de oficio.

          The Court takes judicial notice, that, except for appellants Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Sr., Pedro T. Vicencio, and Felipe Engreso who are on provisional liberty under bail, all the rest of these appellants are detained, and their detention dates back as of August, October or November, of the year 1950, as the case may be. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is hereby directed to determine the period of detention that should be credited to the appellants who are under detention, pursuant to the provisions of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, and to release immediately those appellants who are entitled to be credited with the period of their detention equal to the penalty of imprisonment imposed upon them in this decision. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez and Capistrano, JJ., concur.Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., took no part.Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J., are on leave.

Separate Opinions

FERNANDO, J., concurring:

          I join my colleagues in giving assent to the well-written and exhaustive opinion of Justice Zaldivar, speaking for this Court, distinguished as it is by grasp of the relevant facts meticulously examined and narrated with clarity as well as of the controlling legal principles that call for application. Particularly noteworthy to my mind is the re-affirmation of our doctrine in People v. Hernandez, 1 with the present Chief Justice, who penned the opinion, stressing the primacy of liberty even when the offense charged is against the security of the state.

          Precisely because of what I deem to be high estate that must be accorded liberty even in times of trouble and distress, I feel that additional words might not be amiss. It would appear to me that the prosecution of the accused herein having been started at a time when there appeared to be a clear danger to democratic institutions, the belief seemed to have gained credence in certain circles that as far as these accused were concerned, there was no need to apply with rigor their constitutional rights.

          That to me is a false thesis. It implies the weakness of a democracy to defend itself democratically. Under such view, a government could be spared the threat from internal subversion, but what is saved is no longer the government contemplated by the framers and the people who adopted the Constitution.

          Well has Justice Bengzon observed in his separate opinion in Nava v. Gatmaitan: 2 "And in my opinion, one of the surest means to ease the uprising is a sincere demonstration of this Government's adherence to the principles of the Constitution together with an impartial application thereof to all citizens, whether dissidents or not. Let the rebels have no reason to apprehend that their comrades now under custody are being railroaded into Muntinglupa, without benefit of those fundamental privileges which the experience of the ages has deemed essential for the protection of all persons accused of crime before the tribunals of justice. Give them the assurance that the judiciary, ever mindful of its sacred mission will not, thru faulty cogitation or misplaced devotion, uphold any doubtful claims of Governmental power in diminution of individual rights, but will always cling to the principle uttered long ago by Chief Justice Marshall that when in doubt as to the construction of the Constitution, "the Courts will favor personal liberty" ..."

          Justice Tuason in another opinion rendered in that case would apply the constitutional rights with undeviating rigidity: "To the plea that the security of the State would be jeopardized by the release of the defendants on bail, the answer is that the existence of danger is never a justification for courts to tamper with the fundamental rights expressly granted by the Constitution. These rights are immutable, inflexible, yielding to no pressure of convenience, expediency, or the so-called "judicial statesmanship." The legislature itself cannot infringe them, and no court conscious of its responsibilities and limitations would do so. If the Bill of Rights are incompatible with stable government and a menace to the Nation, let the Constitution be amended, or abolished. It is trite to say that, while the Constitution stands, the courts of justice as the repository of civil liberty are bound to protect and maintain undiluted individual rights." 3

          It is extremely difficult to find cause for disagreement with the above views for they accord with the fundamental postulate of this Government, namely, that the Constitution is supreme and this Court, as its ultimate guardian, is called upon to apply its provisions in the determination of actual cases and controversies before it. Well has it been observed that it exists precisely to assure the protection of the citizen and the maintenance of his constitutional rights. The exercise of this official duty requires that it gives effect to the supreme law even to the extent in clear cases of setting aside legislative and executive action.

          This is not to say that the judicial process takes place in a social void. The existence of an emergency is not a factor to be reckoned with lightly. The task of this Court in adjusting or harmonizing individual rights with the safety of the state, ordinarily one of utmost delicacy, then becomes even more formidable. The fact remains however that the regime established here is one of liberty of justice and of democracy. Belief in the theory of liberty is not merely an echo of a discredited past. It remains a fighting faith. It is a proclamation of the vitality of the democratic process. It rests on the conviction deeply and profoundly held that given the choice, a free people will prefer to remain free.

          This is not to deny that force has to be met with force. This is not to deny that the courts are not to hamper the efforts of the executive agencies to put down subversion in whatever form it may manifest itself and wherever it may make its appearance. This is not to deny that on the executive and its agents is conferred the authority to cope with rebellious activities. Such authority must be equal to the grave responsibility thus confronting it.

          Nonetheless, even under such circumstances, our duty is clear. It is not for us to abdicate our constitutional function. We cannot, just because of the danger sanction every step the executive authorities might take. If we do so, we would lend comfort to the very forces seeking to undermine the government. They can assert, and with plausibility, that the Constitution no longer obtains. It is precisely in times of emergency that the role of the judiciary as guardian of constitutional rights becomes more pressing and inescapable, if the faith and confidence of the people in democracy in action are to be preserved unimpaired.

          Since to my mind such a view is implicit in the opinion of Justice Zaldivar, even if not expressly avowed, I yield my concurrence.

Footnotes

1G.R. Nos. L-6025 and L-6026, July 18, 1956; 99 Phil. 515, 520, 541, 547, 551.

299 Phil. 515, 535.

3Appellee's brief, pp. 180-182.

4People vs. Camerino, L-13484, May 20, 1960; U. S. vs. Cernias, 10 Phil. 682.

5U. S. vs. Santiago, 41 Phil. 793.

6People vs. Hernandez, supra; People vs. Romagosa, supra; and People vs. Santos, supra.

7Tan It vs. Sun Insurance Office, 51 Phil. 212.

8Pages 61-62, t.s.n., Reconstitution.

9Pages 33, 37, t.s.n., Reconstitution.

10Pages 429-432, t.s.n., Vol. III.

11Page 548, t.s.n., Vol. III.

12Page 410, t.s.n., Vol. III.

13Sec. 23, Rule 132, Rules of Court.

14Page 564, t.s.n., Vol. III; Cho Chun Chac vs. Garcia, 47 Phil. 530; Alejandrino vs. Reyes, 53 Phil. 974.

15Anderson vs. State, 72 Ga. App. 487; 34 S.E. (2d) 110; Underhill Criminal Evidence, 5th ed., Vol. I, p. 430.

16Exhibit O-13-14, par. 1.

17Exhibit O-106-107, par. 2.

18Exhibit M-1726.

19Exhibit K-206.

20Exhibit O-582-589.

21Exhibit M-1806-1813.

22Page 429, t.s.n., Vol. III.

23Pages 433-434, t.s.n., Vol. III.

24Page 803, t.s.n., Vol. III.

25Exhs. N-77; N-212.

26Exhs. M-421-422; N-60.

27Exh. M-31-32, par. 18.

28Exh. O-473-474.

29Exh. M-280-283.

30Exh. M-248-251.

31Exh. N-257-268.

32Exhs. N-269-271; M-1585.

33Exhs. N-175-176; O-480.

34Exh. K-1396-1397.

35Exhs. M-244-254; M-258-267; M-269.

36Exhs. N-265-268; M-1570.

37Exhibit CC.

38Exhs. O-91-92, par. 2; O-308-309, par. 2; pages 500-512, t.s.n., Vol. III.

39Exh. O-106-107.

40Exhibit M-25-26.

41Exhibits O-99-101, par. 3; O-312, par. 4.

42Exhibit O-334-337, par. 6.

43Exhibit O-643, par. 9.

44Pages 433-434, t.s.n., Vol. III.

45Exhibits HH-4 to HH-8; page 780, t.s.n., Vol. III.

46Exhibits L-318; M-1330-1331; M-21; O-441-444; O-643, par. 9; O-334-337, par. 10; pages 19, 26, t.s.n., Vol. III.

47Exhibits M-1241; M-1242-1243; M-1268-1269; M-248, M-260; O-449; M-1257, M-1270 and M-1369.

48Exhibits M-1310; M-1365-1366.

49Exhibits C-318, par. 1; N-535-538.

50Exhibits M-1241, M-1255, M-1743, M-1765-1768.

51Exhibit M-54.

52Exhibit M-159-162.

53Exhibits M-152-153.

54Exhibit M-80.

55Pages 778-779, t.s.n., Vol. III; Exhibits M-54, M-56, M-57, M-58, M-60, M-61, M-65.

56Exhibit O-281, par. 6.

57Exhibit O-316-317, par. 3.

58Exhibit M-35-38, par. 15.

59Exhibit M-35-38, par. 15.

60Exhibit L-33-P to L-33 Pa. See also Exhibits L-33-c and L-33-d which had been shown to be Baking's handwritten outline of his MEMO on the WCS.

61Exhibits GG to GG-10.

62Exhibits M-1241, M-1255, M-1244, M-1290-91; Pages 671- 673, t.s.n., Vol. II.

63Exhibits DD-1, M-1423; Pages 654-657, t.s.n., Vol. II.

64Exhibits EE to EE-4.

65Page 743, t.s.n., Vol. III.

66Exhibits EE-2 to EE-3.

67Pages 657-658, t.s.n., Vol. II.

68Pages 744-746, t.s.n., Vol. III.

69Page 669, t.s.n., Vol. III.

70Exhibits V-V-4; Pages 626-628 t.s.n., Vol. II.

71Exhibits M-1054 and M-1056.

72Exhibits M-171 and M-172.

73Exhibits K-189, M-1660, M-1666 to M-1670.

74Exhibit W-3, par. 7.

75Exhibits W, W-1, K-208; Page 841, t.s.n. Vol. III.

76Exhibit L-145.

77Pages 834-836, t.s.n., Vol. III.

78Exhibit O-13-14, par. 1.

79Exhibits O-572, O-572a-1, O-572 ab-1.

80Exhibit O-577.

81Exhibit O-578.

82Exhibit O-576.

83Exhibit O-505-506.

84Exhibit M-10.

85Exhibit O-9.

86Exhibits BB to BB-7, p. 610, t.s.n, Vol. III.

87Exhibit O-643, par. 8; Pages 715, 729, t.s.n., Vol. III.

88Exhibits Z to Z-11.

89Exhibits M-570, M-1472-1474.

90Exhibits LL to LL-7; Pages 670, 673, t.s.n. Vol. III.

91Page 428, t.s.n., Vol. I; Page 671, t.s.n., Vol III.

92 Pages 634-35, 637, 666, 689, t.s.n., Vol. III.

93Pages 668-670, t.s.n., Vol. III.

94Pages 172, 196, 198, t.s.n., Vol. II; Page 682, t.s.n., Vol. IV; Pages 3 and 6, t.s.n., Vol. III.

95Exhibits JJ to JJ-7; Pages 3 and 6, t.s.n., Vol. III.

96Exhibits SS to SS-3.

97Pages 620-623, t.s.n., Vol. III.

FERNANDO, J., concurring:

1Phil. 515 (1958).

290 Phil. 172 (1951).

3At p. 206.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Cariño vs People

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-14752             April 30, 1963

FRANCISCO R. CARIÑO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, (1st Division), respondents.

Teehankee and Carreon for petitioner.Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.

LABRADOR, J.:

This is an appeal by way of certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 18, 1958 in the above entitled case, affirming the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila finding the accused Francisco Cariño guilty as accomplice in the crime of rebellion, and sentencing him to suffer two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prison correccional and to pay a fine in the sum of P2,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

In an information dated April 28, 1952, filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the accused was charged with the crime of rebellion with murders, arsons, robberies and kidnappings, for having, as a high ranking officer and/or member of the Communist Party of the Philippines and of the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (Huks), agreed in conspiracy with 31 others who were charged with the same crime in other criminal cases then pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government and disrupting its activities.

The specific acts of rebellion which the accused is alleged to have committed in conspiracy with other members of the Communist Party, between the period from May 6, 1946 to September 12, 1950, are:

1. The ambush on May 6, 1946 of the 10th MPC Company in Barrio Sta. Monica, Aliaga, Nueva Ecija; resulting in the death of 10 enlisted men;

2. The raid on August 6, 1946 of the Municipal Building of Majayjay, Laguna;

3. The ambush on April 10, 1947 of 14 enlisted men in Barrio San Miguel na Munti, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, during which Lt. Pablo Cruz and Pvt. Santiago Mercado were killed;

4. The raid on the poblacion of Laur, Nueva Ecija, of May 9, 1947;

5. The ambush on August 19, 1947 of a detachment of the 155th Co., in San Miguel, Bulacan, killing two officers thereof;

6. The raid on Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, of June 1946;

7. The ambush on April 25, 1947 of Mrs. Aurora Aragon Quezon and party at Barrio Salubsub, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, resulting in the death of said Mrs. Quezon and other members of her party;

8. The raid on Camp Macabulos, Tarlac, Tarlac, of August 25, 1950;

9. The raid on Sta. Cruz, Laguna, of August 26, 1950;

10. The raid on Arayat, Pampanga, of August 25, 1950;

11. The seizure on September 12, 1950 of an army scout car in Barrio Mapalad, Arayat, Pampanga and the murder of two TPs on the said occasion;

12. The attack on the headquarters of a PC detachment of March 28, 1950, at Montalban, Rizal; and

13. The raid on San Pablo, Laguna, of March 29, 1950, resulting in the death of Major Alikbusan of the government armed forces.

Although the defendant-appellant expressly admitted the truth of the allegations of the commission of robberies, murders, arsons, kidnappings, etc., in the manner and from alleged and on the dates stated in the information, he vigorously denied any participation therein.

It appears from the evidence, as found by the Court of Appeals, that the accused is a close friend of Dr. Jesus Lava (a top leader of the Communists and a wanted man with a price on his head) who was his classmate in the high school, and who later on became the godfather of the first child of the accused. Appellant's wife and children were treated successfully by Dr. Lava in 1939 and 1943 for various illnesses free of charge, and appellant believed that his wife and children owe their lives to Dr. Lava. One night in the year 1946, Dr. Lava arrived in the house of the accused asking for shelter, stating that he was being persecuted by certain politicians from Bulacan, on suspicion that he had something to do with the killing of Mayor Roxas of Bulacan, Bulacan. Appellant gave Lava accommodation for the night, and early the following morning Lava left. The next time that the appellant heard from Lava was in May, 1949, when he received a note from the latter asking for some cigarettes, powdered milk and canned goods. The note was brought by a boy of 12 or 15 years, named Totoy, and through him the accused sent the needed supplies. Thereafter, every now and then, the same boy brought to appellant similar notes from Dr. Lava, requesting for food and supplies, which the accused furnished in as small amounts as he could send.

In the first note of Dr. Lava, appellant was instructed to sign "Turko" all notes to be sent by him to the former and to address them to "Pinang" in order to conceal their respective identities. This exchange of notes between them and the furnishing of supplies and

foodstuffs by appellant to Dr. Lava lasted from 1949 until April, 1952, when the accused was arrested and detained.

The Court of Appeals also found that appellant, as a ranking employee of the National City Bank of New York, was approached by a prominent member of a special unit of the Communist Party, entrusted with the carrying out of raids, hold-ups, etc. for the purpose of raising funds, and through his assistance the amount of $6,000, part of the proceeds or loot of said special unit, was changed into pesos and then delivered to the treasurer of the communists; that appellant also assisted on or about October 12, 1950, two top-level communists in opening current accounts in the National City Bank of New York although their initial deposit was below P2,000, the minimum required by the bank. (However it was not shown that the persons helped were known by appellant to be communists and the funds intended to carry out the rebellion.)

Sometime in 1949, appellant was present at a banquet given by the Communists in honor of Amado V. Hernandez, one of the supposed top-level members of the organization, on which occasion he was introduced as a communist to Florentino Diolata, who posed as a communist but who, in reality, was a person secretly planted by the Constabulary as a spy; that while being introduced the accused stated that he was at the command of his comrades for any assistance for the advancement and promotion of their common purpose.

Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1äwphï1.ñët

Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code defines accomplices, thus:

ART. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

In the case of People vs. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38, 49, we held as an essential condition to the existence of complicity that there be not only a relation between the acts done by the principal and these attributed to the person charged as an accomplice, but that the latter, with knowledge of the criminal intent, cooperated with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way.

So that there are two elements required, in accordance with the definition of the term accomplice given in the Penal Code, in order that a person may be considered an accomplice to a criminal act, namely, that he take part in the execution of the crime by previous and simultaneous acts and that he intend by said acts to commit or take part in the execution of the crime.

The crime of rebellion or insurrection has been defined as follows:

ART. 134. Rebellion or insurrection — How committed. — The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the

Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or of depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers, or prerogatives. (Revised Penal Code)

In the case at bar the appellant did not take up arms against the Government. Neither was he a member of the Hukbalahap organization. The Court of Appeals also found that he did not openly take part in the commission of the crime above defined by any other act without which said crime would not have been committed. (Decision, p. 7) Said the Court of Appeals:

There is no clear and conclusive evidence that the accused is a member of the Communist Party or of its sister organization, the 'Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan', but there can be no doubt that he is a sympathizer of the communists and helped them by giving supplies to Dr. Jesus Lava, and by sending notes to him, knowing that he is a top-level communist with a high price on his head. And not only that. The accused also helped a top-level communist in changing six thousand dollars ($6,000) into pesos in the National City Bank of New York, of which he was a ranking official with the designation of Pro Manager. He also introduced to the bank two top-level communists and helped them in opening checking accounts in the bank where they deposited money used in the activities of the Communist Party.

By extending such help to well-known members of the Communist Party and knowing that the avowed purpose of said party is to overthrow the government, the accused, by means of overt acts gave them aid, comfort, and assistance, and indirectly helped them in their fight against the Government. Of course the accused did not take direct participation in the acts alleged in the information, nor did he directly force or induce the communists to commit such acts; neither did he openly take part in the commission of the acts of rebellion by another act without which the act of rebellion would not have been accomplished. However, the acts done by him as above stated constitute acts of cooperation with the communists in their primordial purpose of overthrowing the government, and such acts naturally have contributed to some extent in the advancement and promotion of their purpose. By such cooperation knowingly extended by him, he is liable as an accomplice in the crime of rebellion as found by the trial court.

We cannot agree to the above conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the above-mentioned acts of appellant constitute acts of cooperation in the execution of the act of overthrowing the government. If appellant's acts may be considered an indirect help or aid in the rebellion, which we positively doubt, the same cannot constitute previous or simultaneous acts of uprising or rebellion. In the crime of treason any act of giving comfort or moral aid may be criminal, but such is not the case with rebellion or insurrection where the Code expressly declares that there must be a public uprising and the taking up of arms in rebellion or insurrection. The act of sending or furnishing cigarettes and food supplies to a famous Huk does not prove intention to help him in committing rebellion or insurrection. Neither is the act of having $6,000 changed to Philippine money or in helping Huks to open accounts, by themselves show an intent or desire to participate or help in an uprising or rebellion. Appellant's work was as a public relations officer of the bank of which he was an employee, and the work above indicated performed by him was a part of his functions as an

employee of the bank. These acts by themselves do not and cannot carry or prove any criminal intent of helping the Huks in committing the crime of insurrection or rebellion. The law is to the effect that good faith is to be presumed. No presumption of the existence of a criminal intent can arise from the above acts which are in themselves legitimate and legal. Said acts are by law presumed to be innocent acts while the opposite has not been proved.

But granting, for the sake of argument, that appellant had the criminal intent of aiding the communists in their unlawful designs to overthrow the Government, the assistance thus extended by him may not be considered efficacious enough to help in the successful prosecution of the crime of insurrection or rebellion so as to make him an accomplice therein. (People vs. Tamayo, supra.) We, therefore, find that the supposed acts found by the Court of Appeals to have been committed by the appellant do not necessarily and legitimately lead to the conclusion that he performed said acts precisely with the criminal intent of helping in the execution or the carrying out of the rebellion or insurrection.

For the foregoing considerations, we declare that the guilt of appellant as an accomplice in the crime of rebellion or insurrection as charged in the information has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, his supposed acts not having been shown to be acts of direct cooperation in the execution of the crime, nor have they been introduced by a criminal intent, nor were they shown to be sufficiently efficacious to make appellant guilty as accomplice in the crime charged.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the appellant absolved from the charge contained in the information. With costs de officio.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, J.J., concur.Padilla, J., took no part.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

People vs Lava

lawphil

Today is Tuesday, November 27, 2012

 

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4974               May 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOSE LAVA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

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

G.R. No. L-4975               May 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LAMBERTO MAGBOO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

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

G.R. No. L-4976               May 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.SIMEON G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

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

G.R. No. L-4977               May 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.HONOFRE MANGILA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

Search

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

G.R. No. L-4978               May 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MAGNO PONTILLERA BUENO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

Office of the Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro and Solicitor Jorge Coquia for plaintiff-appellee.Recto Law Office, Juan T. David, Crispin D. Baizas and Delgado, Flores, Macapagal and Dizon for defendant-appellant Jose Lava.Cipriano C. Manansala for defendants-appellants Federico Maclang, Lamberto Magboo, Honofre D. Magila, Marcos Medina, Cenon Bungay and Magno P. Bueno.R. M. Paterno for defendants-appellants Marciano de Leon and Cesareo Torres.Irineo M. Cabrera for defendant-appellant Iluminada Calonje.Salonga, Ordoñez and Associates for defendants-appellants Angel Baking and Arturo Baking.Jose P. Laurel Law Office for defendant-appellant Simeon Rodriguez.J. Antonio Araneta, Claudio Teehankee and Manuel O. Chan for defendant-appellant Federico Bautista.Ismael T. Torres for defendant-appellant Felipe Engreso.Meliton Soliman for defendant-appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr.

 

ZALDIVAR, J.:

          These are appeals from the joint decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in its Criminal Cases Nos. 14071, 14082, 14270, 14315 and 14344.

          In Criminal Case No. 14071, the defendants were Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz y Adriano, Rosario C. viuda de Santos and Angel Baking. The appeal from the decision in this case is now in G.R. No. L-4974 before this Court.

          In Criminal Case No. 14082, the defendants were Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Sr., Esteban Gonzales y la Torre, Marcos Medina, Cesario Torres, Rosenda Canlas Reyes, and Arturo Baking y Calma. The appeal from the decision in this case is now in G.R. No. L-4975 before this Court.

          In Criminal Case No. 14270, the defendants were Simeon Gutierrez y Rodriguez, Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez, and Victorina Rodriguez y Gutierrez, and Marciano de Leon. The appeal from the decision in this case is now in G.R. No. L-4976 before this Court.

          In Criminal Case No. 14315, the defendants were Honofre D. Mangila and Cenon Bungay y Bagtas. The appeal from the decision in this case is now in G.R. No. L-4977 before this Court.

          In Criminal Case No. 14344 the defendants were Magno Pontillera Bueno, Nicanor Capalad, Rosalina Quizon, Pedro Vicencio, Julia Mesina, Felipe Engreso, Elpidio Acuño Adime, Josefina Adelan y Abusejo, Conrado Domingo, Aurora Garcia, and Naty Cruz. The appeal from the decision in this case is now in G.R. No. L-4978 before this Court.

          All the above-named defendants were charged with having committed the complex crime of rebellion with murders and arsons under an identical information, filed in each of the five cases, which reads as follows: .

          That on or about the 6th day of May, 1946, and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto and continuously up to the present time, in the City of Manila, the seat of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines which the herein accused have intended to overthrow, and the place they have chosen for that purpose as the nerve center of all their rebellious activities in the different parts of the country, the said accused being then high ranking officers or otherwise members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (PKP) of which the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan" (HMB) otherwise or formerly known as the Hukbalahap (Huks), is its armed forces, having come to an agreement and decided to commit the crime of rebellion, and therefore, conspiring and confederating together, acting with many more others whose whereabouts and identities are still unknown up to the filing of this information, and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously promote, maintain, cause, direct and/or command the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB) or the Hukbalahaps (Huks) to rise publicly and take arms against the Government or otherwise participate therein for the purpose of overthrowing the same, as in fact the said Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan or Hukbalahaps (Huks) have risen publicly and taken arms against the Government, by then and there making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army detachments, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, by then and there committing wanton acts of murder, spoilage, looting, arson, planned destruction of private and public buildings, to create and spread terrorism in order to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, as follows, to wit:

(1) On May 6, 1946, the 10th MPC Co. led by First Lt. Mamerto Lorenzo while on patrol duty in the barrio of Santa Monica, Aliaga, Nueva Ecija, was with evident premeditation on the part of the huks ambushed and treacherously attacked by a band of well-armed dissidents or rebels. Ten enlisted men of the MP company were killed. First Lt. Mamerto Lorenzo was captured and beheaded by the rebels.

(2) On August 6, 1946, a group of more than 30 Huks under the leadership of Salvador Nolasco armed with guns of different calibers raided the municipal building of Majayjay, Laguna. They were able to get one Garand, one carbine, one Thompson GMG, and one pistol. They also took one typewriter and stationery (NR Laguna, dated Sept. 2, 1946).

(3) On April 10, 1947, 14 EM under the command of Lt. Pablo C. Cruz, while on their way to investigate a holdup in the barrio of San Miguel na Munti, Talavera, Nueva Ecija were with evident premeditation and treachery on the part of the Huks ambushed and fired upon by Huks armed with 30-caliber rifles, machine guns, and grenades. Lt. Pablo Cruz and Pvt. Santiago Mercado were killed and 6 others were wounded.

(4) On May 9, 1947, Huks numbering around 100 under Lomboy and Liwayway raided the town proper of Laur and forced Municipal Treasurer Jose A. Viloria to open the treasury safe and obtained therefrom more than P600. Policeman Fermin Sanchez was taken by the bandits with one Springfield rifle. Bandits robbed the towns people of their money, personal belongings, rice and carabaos (WITR May 10, 1947). .

(5) On August 19, 1947, Capt. Jose Gamboa, First Lt. Celestino Tiansec, and Second Lt. Marciano Lising, all from the 115th Co., while riding in a jeep following an armored car, were treacherously fired upon by a group of about 100 dissidents armed with automatic rifles, Thompsons, and Garands and lined up on both sides of Highway No. 5 near the cemetery of San Miguel, Bulacan. First Lt. Celestino

Tiansec and Second Lt. Marciano Lising were killed.

(6) In or about the month of June, 1946, Alejandro Viernes, alias Stalin, commander of Joint Forces No. 108 with about 180 men, entered the town of Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, and raised their Huk flag for more than twenty-four hours. The Municipal officials did not offer any resistance because of the superiority in number of the Huks. After demanding from the civilians foodstuffs such as rice, chickens, goats, and carabaos, they left the town, admonishing the civilians always to support the Huk organization. The MP forces under Capt. Ponciano Hanili, S-3, Capt. Federico C. Olares, then Asst. S-3, of Nueva Ecija province, proceeded to Pantabangan with forces of the 112th MP Co. under Capt. Nicanor Garcia, to verify the information, but were not able to contact the dissidents at Pantabangan. They proceeded to the barrio of Marikit, between Pantabangan and Laur, where they engaged some dissidents. When our forces were on their way home, they were pocketed by the dissidents at the zigzag road, but owing to the initiative of our forces, they were able to extricate themselves from their precarious position and were able to fire their mortars and Cal. 50 and .30 machineguns. Investigations made on the field of battle showed that the Huks suffered heavy casualties which was verified later to have been seven cart loads of dead men. (Special Report, PC Nueva Ecija, dated February 23, 1948.)

(7) Mrs. Aurora Aragon Quezon and party were with evident premeditation and treachery on the part of the Huks ambushed at about 10:30, 28 April 49 by an undetermined number of dissidents under Commanders Viernes, Marzan, Lupo and Mulong at kilometer 62, barrio Salubsob, Bongabong, Nueva Ecija. PC escort exchanged fire with the dissidents. Patrol of the First Heavy Weapons Company, 1st PC Battalion was dispatched to reinforce the PC escort. The following persons were killed: Mrs. Quezon, Baby Quezon, Mayor P. Bernardo, Major P. San Agustin, A. San Agustin, Lt. Lasam, Philip Buencamino III, and several soldiers. General Jalandoni and Capt. Manalang sustained slight wounds.

(8) On August 25, 1950, Camp Macabulos, Tarlac, Tarlac was attacked, raided and set fire to and among the casualties therein were Major D. E. Orlino, Capt. T. D. Cruz, Lt. G. T. Manawis, Lt. C. N. Tan, Lt. Eusebio Cabute, Sgt. Isabelo Vargas, Sgt. Bernardo Cadoy, Sgt. Bienvenido Bugay, Sgt. Samuel Lopez, Cpl. Vicente Awitan, Cpl. Ruiz Ponce, Cpl. Eugenio Ruelra, Pvt. Agustin Balatbat, Saturnino Guarin, E. Cabanban, Antonio Monte, Felix Quirin, Gregoria Balcoco, Jose Mojica, Cornelio Melegan, Carlos Bojade, Rodrigo Espejo and Rosario Sotto, a Red Cross nurse.

          Counsel for defendants Jose Lava and Federico Bautista filed a motion to quash the information against them upon the grounds that the information did not conform to the prescribed form, that it charged the defendants with more than one offense, and that the court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. Also filed was a petition for provisional liberty under bail of 14 of the defendants, upon the grounds that (1) the evidence of guilt was not strong and (2) the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus under Proclamation No. 210, dated October 22, 1950, by the President of the Philippines was unconstitutional. Both motion and petition were denied by the trial court in an order dated November 1, 1950.

          Upon agreement of the prosecution and the defense, and with the conformity of all the defendants, the five cases were tried jointly, with the understanding that each defendant could present his/her separate and independent defenses. Notwithstanding the fact that several witnesses had already testified in the first two cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 14071 and 14082) at the time the other three cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 14270, 14315 and 14344) were filed, the defendants in the latter three cases expressed their conformity to a joint trial with the first two cases and agreed that the evidence already taken in the first two cases be reproduced in the latter three cases.

          While the joint trial was being held, the prosecution, after a reinvestigation of the cases, moved that the case with respect to defendant Julia Mesina be dismissed upon the ground of insufficiency of evidence. After the trial and before the cases were submitted for decision, the prosecution also moved for the dismissal of the case against defendant Rosenda Canlas Reyes upon the ground that the evidence on record was not sufficient to support her conviction. Both motions were granted by the trial court.

          After the joint trial, the trial court rendered a joint decision in the five cases, dated May 11, 1951.

          In Criminal Case No. 14071, the court found defendants FEDERICO MACLANG alias Eto alias O. Beria aliasOlibas alias Mariano Cruz alias Ambrosio Reyes alias Manuel Santos; RAMON ESPIRITU alias Johnny alias Ka Johnny; ILUMINADA CALONJE alias Salome Cruz alias Luming; JOSE LAVA alias Harry alias Felix Cruz aliasGaston Silayan alias Gaston alias Gregorio Santayana alias Greg alias Gavino; FEDERICO M. BAUTISTA aliasFreddie alias Fred; ANGEL BAKING alias Angel alias Boriz alias Bayan; and ROSARIO VDA. DE SANTOS aliasCharing, guilty as principals of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies, and pursuant to Article 248, subsections 1 and 3 of the Revised Penal Code, in connection with its Article 48, sentenced defendants Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu and Iluminada Calonje to the capital penalty of death; and defendants Jose Lava, Federico M. Bautista, Angel Baking, and Rosario C. Vda de Santos to reclusion perpetua. The defendants were also ordered to pay the costs in this case.

          In imposing the death penalty upon Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu and Iluminada Calonje, the court took into consideration not only the very nature of the crime committed but also the aggravating circumstance that the said three defendants secured the aid of persons under 15 years of age in the commission of the crime.

          In Criminal Case No. 14082, the court found defendants CESAREO TORRES alias Cesareo Yacat, alias Leoalias Leodones; ARTURO BAKING Y CALMA alias Arturo C. Baking alias A. C. Baking alias Arturo Calma Bakingalias Eduardo Santos, and MARCOS MEDINA alias Hiwara guilty as principals of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies and sentenced the said defendants to reclusion perpetua. The court also found defendants LAMBERTO MAGBOO alias Berting alias Eddie and NICANOR RAZON, SR., alias Elias Ruvi, as accomplice in the commission of the said crime and were sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

          The court did not find sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the defendant ESTEBAN GONZALES Y LA TORRE, alias Esteban La Torre Gonzales, either as principal or accomplice in the commission of the said crime. The court, however, found him guilty as member of the Communist Party in the Philippines, which is an illegal association, and pursuant to Article 147 of the Revised Penal Code, the said defendant was sentenced to four (4) months of arresto mayor. All the defendants were ordered to pay costs.

          In Criminal Case No. 14270, the court found defendants SIMEON GUTIERREZ Y RODRIGUEZ alias Simeon Rodriguez alias Sammy alias S. G. R. alias Lakindanum; MARClANO DE LEON Y ESPIRITU alias Marciano E. de Leon alias Marcial alias Mar, guilty as principals in the commission of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies; and JULITA RODRIGUEZ Y GUTIERREZ alias Judith alias Juling alias Juliet aliasJulie, as accomplice in the commission of the said crime, and sentenced defendants Simeon Gutierrez y Rodriguez, and Marciano de Leon y Espiritu to reclusion perpetua; and defendant Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez to an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. These defendants were ordered to pay the costs.

          The court acquitted defendant VICTORINA RODRIGUEZ Y GUTIERREZ alias Vicky alias Toring.

          In Criminal Case No. 14315, the court found defendants CENON BUNGAY Y BAGTAS alias Ruping aliasCommander Ruping alias Bagtas and HONOFRE D. MANGILA alias Onofre Mangila alias Tommy alias Miller guilty as principals of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies, and pursuant to the provision of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code the said defendant Cenon Bungay y Bagtas and Honofre D. Mangila were sentenced to death. In arriving at this decision the court took into consideration the gravity of their participation in the said complex crime, the first being a Huk squadron commander, who led and took part in several raids and ambuscades conducted by the HMB and caused the killing of Major Leopoldo Alicbusan of the PC Detachment at San Pablo City, Laguna, and the second (Mangila) being a member of the powerful Central Committee of the Communist Party in the Philippines, which elects the Politburo members. The said defendants were also ordered to pay the costs.

          In Criminal Case No. 14344, the court found defendant MAGNO PONTILLERA BUENO alias Magno Buenoalias Mamerto Banyaga alias Narding, guilty as principal of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies and sentenced the said defendant to death. The court, likewise found defendants ROSALINA V. QUIZON alias Regina Quiambao; PEDRO VICENCIO alias Pedring; FELIPE ENGRESO alias Ipe; JOSEFINO ADELAN Y ABUSEJO alias Fely; ELPIDIO ACUÑO ADIME alias Rolly, alias Rolly Enriquez alias Rol aliasPidiong, and NATY CRUZ alias Natie alias Naty alias Spring, and CONRADO DOMINGO alias Adong guilty beyond reasonable doubt as accomplices in the commission of the said crime and sentenced the said Rosalina Quizon and Pedro Vicencio to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal as maximum; and Felipe Engreso, Josefina Adelan and Conrado Domingo to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayoras maximum. The last three accused were declared entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, they being under 18 years of age.

          With respect to defendants Elpidio Acuño Adime and Naty Cruz, they being under 16 years of age, further proceedings were suspended and pursuant to the provision of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, the court ordered that the said Elpidio Acuño Adime be committed to the Boys' Training School and Naty Cruz to the Girls' Training School at Mandaluyong, Rizal under the custody and supervision of the Commissioner of Social Welfare or his authorized representatives until they reach the age of majority or until further orders of the court. The Commissioner of Social Welfare was directed to submit to the court every four months a written report on the good or bad conduct of the said minors, on the moral and intellectual progress made by them during the period of their confinement in said institutions.

          The court acquitted defendants NICANOR CAPALAD alias Canor and AURORA GARCIA alias Laring.

          All the defendants except Nicanor Capalad and Aurora Garcia were ordered to pay the costs.

          In imposing the capital penalty on Magno Pontillera Bueno the Court took into account not only his being a member of the powerful Central Committee of the Communist Party jointly with Federico Maclang and Honofre Mangila but also his being an instructor on Military Tactics in the "Stalin University", the military training school for Huks in the mountains.

          The rights to file a civil action to recover indemnity for the death of the victims of the murders specifically referred to in these cases were reserved to the heirs of the said victims.

          Thus, of the original 31 defendants in these five criminal cases, five were acquitted, namely: Julia Mesina, Rosenda Canlas Reyes, Victorina Rodriguez y Gutierrez, Nicanor Capalad and Aurora Garcia. Of the 26 who were convicted, all appealed to this Court except defendant Esteban Gonzales la Torre. Later, defendants Rosalina Quizon, Elpidio Acuño Adime, Josefina Adelan Abusejo, Conrado Domingo and Naty Cruz withdrew their appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, defendants Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez and Magno Pontillera Bueno died. The appeals now before this Court, therefore, involve only 18 defendants, namely: Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Rosario Vda. de Santos, Angel Baking, Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Marcos Medina, Cesareo Torres, Arturo Baking, Simeon G. Rodriguez, Marciano de Leon, Honofre Mangila, Cenon Bungay, Pedro Vicencio, and Felipe Engreso.

          Upon petition by the Deputy Chief, Military Intelligence Service (MIS) of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, this Court, by order of March 7, 1952, appointed the MIS the custodian of the exhibits and documents that were presented as evidence in these five criminal cases before the trial court. This step was taken because those documents and exhibits were needed also as evidence in other courts in the prosecution of other members of the HMB (Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan). Later, by order of April 14, 1955, this Court appointed the Staff Judge Advocate of the Philippine Constabulary the custodian of the same documents and exhibits. Those documents and exhibits were kept at the headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary at Camp Crame, Quezon City. On September 10, 1958 the headquarters of the PC was destroyed by fire, and all those documents and exhibits were burned. Upon a petition for the reconstitution of the said documents and exhibits, this Court appointed Deputy Clerk of Court Bienvenido Ejercito as Commissioner to receive evidence for the reconstitution of those documents and exhibits. The Commissioner, after due hearing, submitted his report, dated October 6, 1959, recommending that the documents and exhibits that were burned be declared reconstituted by the photostatic copies of the originals of those documents and exhibits. The Commissioner stated in his report that those photostatic copies were duly identified during the hearings on the reconstitution. Over the objection of counsels for the defendants-appellants, this Court approved the report of the Commissioner.

          Counsels for the appellants were allowed by the Court all the time that they needed to prepare the briefs for the appellants. The last brief for the appellants was filed on January 22, 1963. The Solicitor General filed the brief for the appellee (People of the Philippines) on June 29, 1963. These appeals were set for hearing on oral argument on August 28, 1963. On that date counsel for some of the defendants-appellants argued the case for their clients; and counsels for other defendants-appellants were given a period of 20 days to submit a memorandum in lieu of oral argument. The Solicitor General was likewise granted leave to submit a reply memorandum within 20 days from the receipt of the copies of the appellants' memoranda. Upon the filing of the memoranda these cases were considered submitted for decision.

          These cases have been pending for decision in this Court since October, 1963, and it would seem that this Court has not acted with dispatch in the disposition of these cases. It must be known, however, that this Court has been swamped with cases appealed from the lower courts and from administrative bodies and officials, as provided by law, and despite the arduous labors by the members of this Court the docket of this Court has been, and still is, clogged. There are numerous criminal cases appealed to this Court ahead of these five cases. Certainly the appellants in those earlier appealed criminal cases deserve the same concern from this Court that the appellants in these five cases expect for themselves. The record of these five cases, consisting of the "rollos", the transcript of the stenographic notes taken during the trial and the documentary exhibits, is so voluminous that when piled vertically it would stand almost three feet high. The record has to be meticulously examined and studied by the members of this Court, working as a collegiate body. In deciding cases, this Court inclines more to careful study and deliberation rather than to dispatch.

Existence and activities of the CPP and HMB

          We have thoroughly examined the testimonial and documentary evidence in the present cases, and We find it conclusively proved, as did the lower court, that as of the year 1950 when elements of the police and armed forces of the Government arrested the defendants in these five cases there was already a nationwide organization of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), and that said party had a well-organized plan to overthrow the Philippine Government by armed struggle and to establish in the Philippines a communist form of government similar to that of Soviet Russia and Red China. The Communist Party of the Philippines had as its military arm the organization known as the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan" (HMB), otherwise or formerly known as the Hukbalahaps (Huks). It is established that the rebellious activities of the HMB, and the commission of common crimes in different parts of the country by the HMB, were directed by the Communist Party of the Philippines through its Politburo (PB) and/or Secretariat (SEC). The Politburo and/or the Secretariat gave orders to the field through its general headquarters (GHQ) and its regional commands (RECOS), and reports to the Politburo and/or Secretariat were made regarding the activities of the HMB, giving accounts of the sorties or ambushes and attacks against elements of the police, the Philippine Constabulary and the army, and of killings, lootings and destruction's of property. It is also established that the plan of the Communist Party was not only to overthrow the Philippine Government but also to kill officials of the Government and private individuals who refused to cooperate with the rebels, and orders to this effect were transmitted to the HMB.

          Among the documentary evidence presented during the trial is the Constitution of the Communist Party of the Philippines, one of the documents seized in one of the raids when some of the appellant were arrested. In this document it is shown that the CPP has a National Congress (NC) which is the highest Authority in the party. The National Congress formulates the policies of the party, and determines the functions of the party and of the standing committees; it renders decisions on all problems regarding organizations and tactics, and on appeals brought before it; and it elects the members of the Central Committee (CC). The Central Committee, which is the highest authority when the National Congress is not in session, enforces the Constitution, implements the policies formulated by the National Congress, promulgates Rules and regulations, supervises all political and organizational work of the party, takes charge of financial matters and renders an accounting thereof to the National Congress, and elects the General Secretary (SEC) and all the members of the Politburo. The Politburo (PB) is the real executive body of the party, and is responsible for the execution of the powers and duties of the Central Committee when the latter is not in session. The General Secretary and the Politburo are responsible to the Central Committee for all their decisions and actions. Then there are departments, bureaus, committees and other organizational units. There is the National Education Department (NED), the educational Department (ED), the Organization Bureau (OB), the Organizational Department (OD), the District Organization Committee (DOC) the Peasants' Organization (PO), the Trade Union Department (TUD), the Sanggunian Tanggulang Baryo (STB), the Military Committee (MC), the General Headquarters (GHQ), the Regional Command (RECO), the Field Command (FC), the Battalion (BN), the Company, (CO), the Platoon (PLN), and the Squad (SQD). There is also the National Finance Committee (NFC) in charge of the financial matters of the Party, the RECO Finance Committee (RFC), the District Finance Committee (DFC), the Field Command Supply Officer (FC-G-4), the Battalion Supply Officer (Bn-G-4), the Company Supply Officer (Co-G-4), the Platoon Supply Officer (Pln-S-4), the National Courier Division (NCD), the Reco Courier Division (RCB), the Central Post (CP), and Field Command Courier (FC-Courier).

          The Secretariat provisionally assumed the functions of the GHQ which was abolished by the Politburo in its conference in January 1950. The Secretariat alone has final authority to impose the death penalty in court martial cases where SECCOM (National Committee) cadres are involved. Several SEC transmissions to the Politburo members assigned to regional commands indicate that the Secretariat discussed plans of attack by the HMB,

distributes forces, and supplies intelligence information.

          There is the National Courier (or Communication) Division (NCD), which is in charge of the communication system of the CPP, and the distribution of supplies to the different regional commands in the field. There is a Special Warfare Division, in charge of operating technological warfare against the enemy such as the use of homemade bombs, molotov cocktails, land mine traps, etc. There is the Technical Group (TG) which attends to the manufacture of homemade firearms and other weapons. This group includes chemists and engineers. Then there is the National Intelligence Division, in charge of gathering military intelligence, as well as political and economic intelligence.

          For purposes of regional commands, the Philippines was divided geographically into ten regions in order to facilitate the political, military, and economic administration by the Communist Party of the Philippines. Those regional commands are as follows: .

          RECO 1 — Nueva Ecija, Pangasinan and lower Mt. Province.

          RECO 2 — Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales and Bataan.

          RECO 3 — Bulacan and Rizal, except the towns under City Command.

          RECO 4 — Laguna, Batangas, Quezon and Cavite.

          RECO 5 — Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, Albay and Sorsogon.

          RECO 6 — Panay, Negros, Cebu, Samar, Leyte, Bohol and Palawan.

          RECO 7 — Davao, Lanao, Cotabato, Zamboanga and Agusan.

          RECO 8 — Cagayan Valley provinces and Nueva Viscaya.

          RECO 9 — Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, Abra, and La Union.

          CITY COMMAND — Manila, Malabon, Caloocan, Navotas, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, Mandaluyong, San Juan, Marikina, Pasig, Guadalupe, Pasay, Baclaran, Parañaque, Muntinglupa and Alabang.

          The Communist Party of the Philippines has a flag, colored red, with the symbols of the hammer and the sickle (Exhibit A), and a newspaper organ called "TITIS". In the general plan to indoctrinate the masses into communistic ideas and principles, communist schools — some of them called "Stalin University" — were set up in a number of places in the mountain fastnesses, where trained instructors gave lectures and taught lessons in the principles of Karl Marx, Frederich Engels, Joseph Stalin and Nicolai Lenin. .

          As has been stated, the CPP has an armed force, which is the HMB. The predecessor of the HMB was the HUKBALAHAP, an organization created by the party during the Japanese occupation to resist the Japanese forces. Upon liberation of the Philippines, the members of the Hukbalahap continued their activities, the organization was renamed HMB, and its members were indoctrinated in communistic principles. The members of the HMB are known as "Huks".

          The tie-up between the CPP and the HMB is established beyond doubt by the evidence. It is shown that the heads of the CPP were in regular communication with the leaders of the HMB, and the raids, ambushes, burnings, lootings and killings were planned and authorized by the CPP. Appellant Federico Maclang, who is a member of the Politburo, in his testimony, admitted that the HMB is the armed force of the CPP. Luis Taruc, who at the time was the head of the HMB, participated in the meetings and deliberations of the CPP. Some instances may be cited: (1) When Luis Taruc, leader of the HMB, was interviewed by Manuel Manahan representing the newspaper "Bagong Buhay", sometime in July 1950, the said interview was planned, approved and authorized by the Secretariat of the Communist Party. The purpose of the interview was to make Taruc declare about the true status of the leadership in the HMB and the CPP, and belie reports of division among the leaders; (2) When appellant Simeon Rodriguez, a member of the Politburo and a ranking member of the National Finance Committee, was arrested at 268 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila on October 18, 1950, there were found in his possession 65 P100-bills and 60 P50-bills and also P145 circulating notes and $312 in paper currency whose serial numbers (except two dollars) tallied with the serial numbers of part of the money (amounting to more than P80,000) that was taken by the Huks from the safe of the office of the Provincial Treasurer when they raided Sta. Cruz, Laguna, on August 26, 1950. Provincial Treasurer Balbino Kabigting of Laguna had a record of the serial numbers of the money taken by the Huks, and he even issued a warning to the public about the loss of the money — mentioning in the warning the serial numbers of the money taken. There are documents showing that this money taken from the provincial treasury of Laguna was the subject of communications between Luis Taruc and appellant Federico Maclang and other members of the Secretariat.

          Written articles and official publications of the CPP and HMB, which were presented as evidence, show the tie-up between the CPP and HMB. Following are some excerpts from those publications:

          As the situation now stands, it can be assumed that the HMB under Communist leadership, already enjoys a quantitative edge over the Nationalista Party ... (Exh. K-211, p. 7, "Struggle against Awaitism". Emphasis supplied).

          The enemy was caught by surprise. The CPP and the HMB it is leading scored a tremendous political victory ... (Exh. O-33, "Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP." Emphasis supplied)

          Documentary and testimonial evidence establish that the various raids and ambuscades perpetrated by the HMB were planned, directed and supported by the CPP. Thus, in the "Milestones in the History of the CPP", written by appellant Jose Lava, it is stated that at the enlarged Politburo conference of January, 1950, it was decided to intensify HMB military operations for political and organizational purposes. The widespread raids and attacks on the occasion of the 8th HMB anniversary (March 28-29, 1950) was decided at the PB conference:

          The conference specifically decided to launch coordinated military operations on the occasion of the eight anniversary of the HMB. (Exh. 249, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. V.)

          The CPP ordered the HMB to fight the Philippine Constabulary and attack government installations. Thus testified Benjamin Advincula, a former high ranking HMB member, who said that when he was Secretary of RECO No. 4, he received orders for transmission to the HMB to fight the Philippine Constabulary. Attacks by the HMB were also reported to the CPP. The accomplishments, for instance, of RECO 2 during the attacks at dawn on March 29, 1950 were reported in Enteng's (Luis Taruc) letter to the Secretariat on April 1, 1950. This letter reported the ambush and liquidation of Captain Dumlao and others; the attack and burning of the CG (Civilian Guard) camp at Manibong, Porac, and the capture of arms and ammunitions thereat; the losses on the enemy side; the burning of 12 houses and the liquidation of 2 spies at Mabalacat, Pampanga. A similar report was furnished by a certain Pedring of RECO 2 in a letter to Eto (Federico Maclang) dated April 2, 1950.

          It was, in fact, the Communist Party that celebrated the eighth anniversary of the HMB, as appears in the Communist Party document "Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP" in which we read about the simultaneous attacks of the HMB on March 29, 1950 the following:

          In quick succession, the Party celebrated the eighth anniversary of the HMB by the coordinated military operations from the far north down to southern Luzon ... (Exh. O-33, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. V)

          The Secretariat issued the following instructions in connection with the May 1, 1950 (Labor Day) attack:

          ... Repeat March 29 simultaneous attacks to time with May 1 celebration to convince the workers of the peasants' unity in struggle with them. Party and HMB messages to be sent. (Exh. O-313, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. V)

          Replying to said order (Exh. 0-313), the Politburo representative of Regional Command No. 3 wrote Gaston (Jose Lava of the Secretariat) and said:

          Ukol sa Plan for May lst OK. We will try our best to accomplish our part without hesitation. (Exh. M-179, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. III).

          The May 1, 1950 attack was followed by simultaneous attacks by the HMB on August 26, 1950, in commemoration of the first "Cry of Balintawak." These attacks were again decided, planned and directed by the Communist Party of the Philippines as shown by transmissions from the Secretariat to the Politburo members in the field. (Exhs. O-93; par. 2; O-102, par. 6). The attacks on August 26, 1950 were also ordered by the Secretariat, because the evidence shows that the Secretariat required submission of complete report thereof, and reports were in fact submitted by Taruc (Enteng) on September 9, 1950 (Exhs. O-638, par. 8; O-278).

          The Communist Party also planned the attack for November 7, 1950, the 20th anniversary of the CPP, which required bigger operations than the attack of August 26, because towns were to be captured, barracks and jails were to be raided and political enemies were to be liquidated. The SEC assigned and allocated the forces to different phases and places of operations. In hand-written notes identified by expert witness to have been written by appellant Jose Lava, the following appears in connection with the plans for November 7:

          ... Coordinated — Core: Capture of towns near Manila, but near Mt. bases — Coordination of RECO 2, 3 & 4, Rizal — Cavite. Pol liquidation in City. Bringing fight near strategic political, military and economic centers Supporting RECO 1 in ILOCOS & CAGAYAN. RECO 5 in BICOL & RECO 6 in VISAYAS. (Exh. O-12.)

          As We have stated, the primordial objective of the Communist Party of the Philippines and of its armed force, the HMB, was to overthrow the Philippine Government by armed struggle. To attain this objective, the CPP also envisioned the following expansion: of the cadres from 3,600 in July, 1950 to 56,000 in September 1951; of the party members from 10,900 in July, 1950 to 172,800 in September, 1951; of HMB members from 10,800 in July, 1950 to 172,800 in September, 1951; and of the organized masses from 30,000 in July, 1950 to 2,430,000 in September, 1951.

          The Communist Party declared the existence of a revolutionary situation in November, 1949 and went underground. This appears in the following excerpts from documents that were presented as evidence during the trial.

          Quickly sizing up the existence of a revolutionary situation, arising from the merger ... of the crises of production due to the imperialist-feudal domination of our economy, and the parliamentary crises due to fraud and terrorism in the 1949 elections, the CPP openly called on the people to overthrow the Liberal Party puppets of the American imperialists. (Exh. O-32, "Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP", Exh. O-12 [hh])

          In the Philippines, the CPP has already declared the existence of a revolutionary situation; and it is concentrating all its energies towards the hastening of the maturity of the revolutionary situation into a crisis leading to the overthrow of the imperialist puppets and the achievement of the NEW DEMOCRACY. (Exh. O-949, "Strategy and Tactics," Exhs. O-126-141) .

          The CPP has declared the existence of a revolutionary situation; since November, 1949, as a result of the merger of the crisis in production of our imperialist feudal dominated economy and the crisis of the burgeois parliamentarism ... Since then, the CPP went completely underground, and openly called on the people for the armed overthrow of the power of American imperialism and its allies in the Philippines exercised through its puppets ... (Exh. O-65)

          The Communist Party of the Philippines is leading the armed struggle for national liberation and the establishment of a New Democracy in order to crush the power of the exploiters, achieve power for the exploited classes, and who are disposed to accept the new society ..." (Exh. O-119 "Accounting for the Peoples' Fund Received and Spent to Finance the Revolution"; see also Exhs. K-12 (u), N-570-573, M-1574, K-244, O-749-56, Documents approved by SEC in its meeting on February 15, 1950. Exh. O-312, par. 3. See Vol. III, Folder of Exhibits)

          ... The Communist Party marks the 54th anniversary of the CRY OF BALINTAWAK calling on the people to join the HMB in annihilating the enemy today, no different from the enemy denounced by Bonifacio. (Exh. M-1524, Vol. III, Folder of Exhibits).

          We find that the criminal acts, consisting of attacks against Philippine Constabulary, murders, robberies, kidnapping, arson, etc. alleged in the information are duly proved by evidence presented during the trial. It is noteworthy that the appellants did not attempt to disprove the evidence regarding the commission of these crimes. Besides those alleged in the information, there were other acts of attacks against the Philippine Constabulary, murders, robberies, etc. that were committed by the Huks that are proved by the evidence — also not disproved by the appellants — as follows:

(1) On March 29, 1950, a band of armed Huks carrying a communist flag raided San Pablo, Laguna. An encounter with the 27th PC Company ensued, and several members of the PC were injured. The Huks looted several Chinese stores.

(2) At about 3 o'clock in the morning of August 26, 1950, approximately 400 Huk dissidents armed with machine guns and rifles attacked Santa Cruz, Laguna. The cashier of the office of the Provincial Treasurer was forced at gun point, to open the vault from which the Huks took more than P80,600. The Huks also took typewriters and office supplies from the office of the Provincial Treasurer. The Huks, after forcing the warden to give the keys, opened the provincial jail and released the prisoners. The provincial jail was later burned. The Huks looted houses and took rice, cigarettes and clothes, and burned five buildings.

(3) On March 29, 1950, several Huks raided San Mateo, Rizal, opened the safe in the municipal building and took money. They also got food and medicines from the townspeople.

(4) On August 28, 1950, Huks attacked the municipal building of Arayat, Pampanga, and forced the municipal mayor at the point of a gun to give P3,629.31 in cash and some documentary stamps. Killed during the incident was one Atty. Samia.

(5) On March 28, 1950, about 80 to 100 Huks attacked San Rafael, Montalban, killing 4 and wounding all soldiers. After the attack, the Huks left communist propaganda leaflets.

(6) On August 30, 1949, upon receiving a report that there was a concentration of Huks at Kamog, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, Lt. Restituto A. Bisda organized a patrol of 20 enlisted men. On the way the patrol was fired upon by the Huks. After the encounter, one Huk member was found dead and from his body were taken several documents.

(7) On October 15 and 17, 1950, P.C. Lt. Velasquez led three platoons of soldiers to the southwestern slope of Mount Malipuño at Lipa City upon receipt of a report that about 200 Huks were gathered in that place. While climbing the mountain they were suddenly attacked and fired upon by the dissidents killing one soldier and wounding others. When they retaliated, the Huks retreated leaving behind a wounded Huk. The Huks abandoned their hideouts in the place. Upon inspection, Lt. Velasquez found a hut with several blackboards, papers and other school supplies inside and a red hammer-and-sickle flag displayed on the wall with letters "STALIN U" (Stalin University), which indicated that the place is one of the military schools for the Huks. (The flag was produced in court and marked Exhibit "A" for the prosecution. This flag had been identified by a witness for the prosecution, a former Huk Colonel named Benjamin Advincula, to be the official flag of the HMB in their military training school in the mountains wherein he had also undergone Huk military training.)

(8) At about midnight on March 29, 1950, Huk dissidents entered the town of Tanauan, Batangas. According to George Collantes, the municipal mayor, there was shooting in the town, and later the industrial center and market were burned after they were raided. Mayor Collantes saw a red flag hoisted by the dissidents. Two of the Huk dissidents were killed.

Issues raised by appellants

          The appellants, in their defense in the present appeals, have raised issues that are common to them all, and also issues particular to each one of them. The issues particular to individual appellants will be discussed at the latter part of this opinion when we deal with their respective appeals.

          1. The appellants are charged with having committed the crime of rebellion with murders and arsons. The trial court declared some of them guilty as principals, and some as accomplices, in the commission of the crime of rebellion complexed with multiple murder, arsons and robberies.

          The law pertinent to the determination of the criminal responsibility of the appellants are Articles 134, 135, and 136 of Revised Penal Code, as follows: .

          ART 134. Rebellion or insurrection — How committed. — The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from

the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or of depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.

          ART. 135. Penalty for rebellion or insurrection. — Any person who promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion or insurrection, or who, while holding any public office or employment takes part therein, engaging in war against the forces of the Government, destroying property or committing serious violence, exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 20,000 pesos.

          Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.

          When the rebellion or insurrection shall be under the command of unknown leaders, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the rebels shall be deemed the leader of such rebellion.

          ART. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection. — The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished, respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed 5,000 pesos, and by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

          It is the common contention of the appellants that the trial court erred in declaring that the crime committed by the appellants was that of "rebellion complexed with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies."

          We uphold the contention of the appellants. The question, of whether or not a person may be prosecuted and held guilty of the crime of rebellion complexed with murder, arson, robbery and/or other common crimes, is now settled. In the case of People vs. Hernandez, etc., et al., 1 this Court held that the crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with other common crimes. The accused in the Hernandez case were charged, as are appellants in the instant cases, "with the crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies." This Court ruled that:

          One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said Article 135, 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, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical injuries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and unhappiness that war leaves in its wake — except that very often, it is worse than war in the international sense, for it involves internal struggle, a fight between brothers, with a bitterness and a passion or ruthlessness seldom found in a contest between strangers. Being within the purview of "engaging in war" and "committing serious violence", said resort to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction of life and property, constitutes not two or more offenses, but only onecrime — that of rebellion plain and simple. Thus, for instance, it has been held that "the crime of treason may be committed" by executing either a single or similar intentional overt acts, different or similar but distinct, and for that reason, it may be considered one single continuous offense. (Guinto vs. Veluz, 77 Phil. 801, 44 Off. Gaz., 909.)" (People vs. Pacheco, 93 Phil. 521.).

          Inasmuch as the acts specified in said Article 135 constitute, we repeat, one single crime, it

follows necessarily that said acts offer no occasion for the application of Article 48, which requires therefor the commission of, at least, two crimes. Hence, this court has never in the past, convicted any person of the "complex crime of rebellion with murder". What is more, it appears that in every one of the cases of rebellion published in the Philippine Reports, the defendants were convicted of simple rebellion, although they had killed several persons, sometimes peace officers. (U.S. vs. Lagnason, 3 Phil. 472; U.S. vs. Baldello, 3 Phil. 509; U.S. vs. Ayala, 6 Phil. 151; League vs. People, 73 Phil. 155)

x x x           x x x           x x x

          There is one other reason — and a fundamental one at that — why Article 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes 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.

          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 than that which would be proper if the several acts performed by him were punished separately. In the words of Rodriguez Navarro:

          La unificacion de penas en los casos de concurso de delitos a que hace referencia este articulo (75 del Codigo de 1932), esta basado francamente en el principio pro reo. (II Doctrina Penal del Tribunal Supremo de España, p. 2168.)

          ... It is evident to us that the policy of our statutes on rebellion is to consider all acts committed in furtherance thereof — as specified in Article 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code — as constituting onlyone crime, punishable with one single penalty — namely, that prescribed in said Article 135. ....

          ... In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations of the amended information against defendant-appellant Amado V. Hernandez, the murders, arsons and robberies described therein are mere ingridients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by the said defendants, as means "necessary" (4) for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion; that the crime charged in the aforementioned amended information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies; that the maximum penalty imposable under such charge cannot exceed twelve (12) years of prision mayor and a fine of P20,000; and that, in conformity with the policy of this court in dealing with accused persons amenable to a similar punishment, said defendant may be allowed to bail." The foregoing ruling was adhered to in the decisions of this Court in the cases of People vs. Geronimo, G.R. No. L-8936, October 23, 1956; People vs. Togonon, G.R. No. L-8926, June 29, 1957; People vs. Romagosa, G.R. No. L-8476, February 28, 1958; and People vs. Santos, G.R. No. L-11813, September 17, 1958.

          In People vs. Geronimo, supra, this Court further elaborated on the Hernandez ruling, as follows:

          As in treason, where both intent and overt act are necessary, the crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of both the armed uprising for the purposes expressed in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, and the overt acts of violence described in the first paragraph of Article 135. That both purpose and overt acts are essential components of one crime, and that without either of them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist is shown by the absence of any penalty attached to Article 134. It follows, therefore, that any or all of the acts described in Article 135, when committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends described in Article 134, becomes absorbed in the crime of rebellion, and cannot be regarded or penalized as distinct crimes in themselves. In law they are part and parcel of the rebellion itself, and cannot be considered as giving rise to a separate crime, that, under Article 48 of the Code, would constitute a complex one with that of rebellion.

          And in People vs. Aquino, et al., L-13789, June 30, 1960, 57 O.G. 9180, this Court said:

          On the other hand, from the very testimony of Filomeno Casal, another witness for the prosecution, it can be gathered that the one who killed or ordered the killing of Mendoza was Commander Silva who, according to Casal, ordered Mendoza to lie down and when the latter refused he shot him. If we are to believe the testimony of this witness the only one responsible for Mendoza's death is Commander Silva for there is nothing to show that his companions who were under his command knew that his design was to liquidate him. At any rate, since it appears that the killing was committed not because of any personal motive on the part of the accused but merely in pursuance of the huk movement to overthrow the duly constituted authorities, the proper charge against them would be rebellion and not murder ....

          The reason for this was already given by this Court in People vs. Hernandez, et al., supra, to wit:

          In short, 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 said offense 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."2

          The Solicitor General, in behalf of the appellee, The People of the Philippines, asks this Court to reexamine the ruling in the Hernandez case "based not only on grounds of public policy but also to interpret the law in order to have justice and adequacy into the Philippine law on rebellion on the basis of prevailing jurisprudential schools of thought such as the sociological theory on the natural law doctrine and ... the policy science theory." 3 This Court has given this plea of the Solicitor General a very serious consideration, but after a mature deliberation the members of this Court have decided to maintain that ruling in the Hernandez case and to adhere to what this Court said in that case, as follows:

          The Court is conscious of the keen interest displayed, and the considerable efforts exerted, by the Executive Department in the apprehension and prosecution of those believed to be guilty of crimes against public order, of the lives lost, and the time and money spent in connection therewith, as well as of the possible implications or repercussions in the security of the State. The careful consideration given to said policy of a coordinate and co-equal branch of the Government is reflected in the time consumed,

the extensive and intensive research work undertaken, and the many meetings held by the members of the court for the purpose of elucidating on the question under discussion and of settling the same.

          The role of the judicial department under the Constitution is, however, clear — to settle justiciable controversies by the application of the law. And the latter must be enforced as it is — with all its flaws and defects, not affecting its validity — not as the judges would have it. In other words, the courts must apply the policy of the State as set forth in its laws, regardless of the wisdom thereof.

x x x           x x x           x x x

          Thus the settled policy of our laws on rebellion, since the beginning of the century, has been one of decided leniency, in comparison with the laws in force during the Spanish regime. Such policy has not suffered the slightest alteration. Although the Government has, for the past five or six years, adopted a more vigorous course of action in the apprehension of violators of said law and in their prosecution, the established policy of the State, as regards the punishment of the culprits has remained unchanged since 1932. It is not for us to consider the merits and demerits of such policy. This falls within the province of the policy-making branch of the Government — the Congress of the Philippines ...

x x x           x x x           x x x

          Such evils as may result from the failure of the policy of the law punishing the offense to dovetail with the policy of the law enforcing agencies in the apprehension and prosecution of the offenders are matters which may be brought to the attention of the departments concerned. The judicial branch cannot amend the former in order to suit the latter. The Court cannot indulge in judicial legislation without violating the principles of separation of powers, and, hence, undermining the foundation of our republican system. In short, we cannot accept the theory of the prosecution without causing much bigger harm than that which would allegedly result from the adoption of the opposite view.

2. The appellants also contend that the informations against them charge more than one offense, in violation of Section 12, Rule 106 of the old Rules of Court (now Section 12, Rule 117 of the new Rules of Court). This contention has no merit. A reading of the informations reveals the theory of the prosecution that the accused had committed the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies and arsons, enumerating therein eight counts regarding specific acts of murder, robbery and arson. These acts were committed, to quote the information, "to create and spread terrorism in order to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose", that is, to overthrow the Government. The appellants are not charged with the commission of each and every crime specified in the counts as crimes separate and distinct from that of rebellion. The specific acts are alleged merely to complete the narration of facts, thereby specifying the way the crime of rebellion was allegedly committed, and to apprise the defendants of the particular facts intended to be proved as the basis for a finding of conspiracy and/or direct participation in the commission of the crime of rebellion. 4 An information is not duplicitous if it charges several related acts, all of which constitute a single offense, although the acts may in themselves be distinct offenses. 5 Moreover, this Court has held that acts of murder, arson, robbery, physical injuries, etc. are absorbed by, and form part and parcel of, the crime of rebellion if committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion charged. 6

3. Another contention of appellants is that the trial court, the Court of First Instance of Manila, did not have jurisdiction to try the cases against them because the acts enumerated in the eight counts in the information were committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This contention is also without merit. Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Rules

of Court provides that the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or province where the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place. The informations allege that Manila is the seat of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines which the appellants sought to overthrow and that Manila was chosen by the accused as the nerve center of all their rebellious activities in the different parts of the country. While it is true that the murders, robberies and arsons alleged in the information were committed outside the City of Manila, in the informations it is alleged that it was in Manila where the accused had decided and agreed to commit the crime of rebellion and it was in Manila where they promoted, maintained, caused, directed and/or commanded the HMB to rise publicly and take arms against the Government, as in fact the HMB had risen publicly, making armed raids, sorties, ambushes, and committing wanton acts of murder, arson, looting, etc. An essential ingredient of the crime of which appellants were charged, therefore, took place in Manila.

4. Some of the appellants contend that their constitutional rights were violated because the documentary evidence presented against them were illegally seized or had come from doubtful sources. This claim has no merit. We have carefully examined the record, and We find that search warrants were properly secured by the peace officers before raids were effected and that the documents, articles and effects seized from each place raided were listed, inventoried and marked. It even appears that statements were signed by some of the appellants certifying that the search warrants were executed in an orderly and peaceful manner by the raiding parties.

5. The appellants assail the reconstitution of the exhibits that were destroyed, and claim that the reconstituted exhibits should not be considered in this appeal. We have stated at the earlier part of this opinion that the exhibits (documentary and other articles) were placed in the custody of the Philippine Constabulary because they had to be presented as evidence in the trial of rebellion cases pending in other courts. Most of the originals of the documentary evidence were burned during the fire that gutted the headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary on September 10, 1958. The Solicitor General filed a petition for the reconstitution of the burned exhibits. The petition was given due course by this Court, and the Deputy Clerk of this Court was commissioned to receive the evidence on the reconstitution of the burned documents. The list of reconstituted exhibits is Exhibit C-Reconstitution. In his report, dated October 6, 1959, the Commissioner recommended the admission of all the reconstituted exhibits.

          We find that the reconstitution was made in accordance with the provisions of Act 3110, which provides for the procedure in the reconstitution of court records. Section 59 of said act provides that destroyed documentary evidence shall be reconstituted by means of secondary evidence which may be presented to any Justice of the Supreme Court or any other officer commissioned by the Court. Section 14 of the act provides that the destroyed or lost documentary evidence shall be replaced by secondary evidence. A photostatic copy of an original document is admissible as a secondary evidence of the contents of the originals and they constitute evidence of a satisfactory nature. 7 The record shows that the photostatic copies of the destroyed exhibits, which were presented before the Commissioner during the reconstitution proceedings, were taken before the originals were destroyed by fire. The photostatic copies had been compared with the originals, properly checked and recorded, by the officer who was the custodian of the exhibits.

          The certified typewritten copies made from the original documents that were hand written in ink are also secondary evidence of the contents of the latter. Sgt. Aquilino Tingco, assigned as assistant to the document officer in charge of the court of exhibits in the rebellion cases, testified that he was the one who furnished the typists the original documents, and after those originals were copied on the typewriter he compared the typewritten copies with the originals, proofread them, stamped them and had them certified as true copies. This witness further testified that before the certified copies were presented in court as evidence said copies were compared with their originals. 8

          During the reconstitution proceedings, counsel for appellants objected to the admission of some of the

reconstituted documents upon the ground that they were not sufficiently identified. The Commissioner, however, admitted all there constituted documents, and We find that the Commissioner rightly did so. We find that Exhibits R-X-6 to R-P-73-79, the admission of which was objected to, were properly identified. Captain Enrique L. Reyes of the PC, who was entrusted with the custody of the documents, had the list of all the exhibits that were burned, which were inventoried and verified; as well as a list of those exhibits that were presented in these cases, of which photostatic copies had been taken; and when asked where the photostatic copies were, Capt. Reyes said that he had the photostatic copies, and pointed to a bundle of folders containing them. These exhibits were checked and counter-checked with the record of the present cases in the Supreme Court. 9 Sgt. Aquilino Tingco, who brought the exhibits to the different courts where they were presented as evidence, and who personally supervised the taking of the microfilm and the photostatic copies that were presented in the courts in lieu of the originals, when asked to show to the Commissioner the photostats made of the documents which were used the Politburo cases, extracted from a folder a bundle of papers and presented the list of exhibits (Exh. C-Reconstitution) along with photostatic copies of those listed exhibits, and he testified on them. The witness was asked to consult the list of exhibits (Exhibit C-Reconstitution) and he pointed to the Commissioner the exhibits to be marked according to the list, which the Commissioner himself marked. The witness testified that the contents of the documents thus marked were the same as those of the originals. The Commissioner considered the documents properly identified and he admitted the documents over the objection of counsel for the appellants, and he recommended to this Court the admission of all of them. This Court approved the report of the Commissioner.

          We have carefully examined and analyzed these reconstituted exhibits and We believe that they constitute a competent evidence to be considered in arriving at a decision in these cases.

          6. The appellants also claim that they were not afforded the time and freedom to prepare for their defense. This claim of appellants is not borne by the record. The record shows, that the trial of these cases took months; all the defendants were represented by counsel, either de officio or de parte, who did their best to defend the appellants during the trial. In fact the defense lawyers were commended by the trial court for their efforts in defense of the appellants. None of the appellants was deprived of his day in court. Everyone was given an opportunity testify and/or adduce evidence in his behalf. All the appellants, except Jose Lava and Nicanor Razon, Sr., testified in court in their own defense. The record does not show that appellant Razon had testified or had presented any evidence in his behalf. Appellant Jose Lava voluntarily refrained from taking the witness stand, but, instead, he presented witnesses who vouched for his good moral character and exemplary conduct as a citizen. We find no merit in the claim that the appellants were not afforded ample time and opportunity to prepare for their defense.

          Having thus resolved the common issues raised by the appellants, We now proceed to determine the criminal responsibility, if any, of the individual appellants.

          The lower court found some of the appellants guilty as principals, and some as accomplices, in the commission of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies. We have already declared in this opinion that the crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, robbery and other common crimes. Our task, therefore, is to determine the degree of responsibility of each of the appellants in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion as defined and penalized under the provisions of Articles 134, 135 and 136 of the Revised Penal Code.

          1. The appeal of Jose Lava

          Upon a careful study of the evidence, We find:

          That appellant Jose Lava was known under these aliases: Harry, Felix Cruz, Gaston, Gaston Silayan, Greg,

Gregorio Santayana and Gavino. Jose Lava became a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines during the Japanese occupation. In a self-appraisal which he wrote, and published in mimeograph form with the approval of the Secretariat, he stated that although he was a new Party member he had been entrusted with responsible positions in the Party and that due to his high sense of responsibility and initiative he could rank with the best in the party. Lava was not only, a confirmed communist; he was a ranking leader of the CPP, being a member of the Central Committee (CC) of the CPP and he participated in the Politburo meetings. In the Politburo conference in Manila in January 1947 he proposed armed struggle to overthrow the Government. His participation therein was described in Exhibit O-228-229, as follows:

          ... There was an attempt in the conference to give it a character of a CC conference notwithstanding the fact that there were only eleven CC members, out of thirty-five, present in the conference. There was also an attempt to isolate some CC members who were easily available, as evidenced by the non-invitation of Coms VY, Harry and Pacing known for their views in support of the Nacionalista-Democratic Alliance coalition, and for an early resumption of the armed struggle. It was only later in the conference, when their absence was noted by certain comrades, that Com Harry was invited to the conference ....

          Com Harry proposed that the conference declare that armed struggle be the main form of struggle ....

          Other documents show that Jose Lava had been attending meetings of the Secretariat (SEC) since October, 1949. He signed, under the alias "Gaston Silayan", the Secretariat's transmission to the Politburo members in the field, under date of October 22, 1949. He issued under different aliases, for and in behalf of the Secretariat, Secretariat transmissions up to October 14, 1950. He signed as "Gaston" the Secretariat's transmission dated December 24, 1949; he signed as "Greg" those of July 22, 1950, of September 23, 1950, of September 30, 1950, of October 7, 1950, and of October 14, 1950; and signed as "Gavino" the transmission dated September 25, 1950.

          Jose Lava's membership in the Secretariat of the CPP is shown in various documents (Exh. C-1313 and Exhs. O-269-270). In another exhibit, N-1015-1017, Kas. Gaston was addressed as the General Secretary.

          As member of the SEC, and as General Secretary, Jose Lava attended SEC meetings and transmitted the decisions of the SEC to the comrades of the Politburo in the regional commands. His direct participation in the meetings of the SEC was mentioned in several SEC transmissions. In one such transmission he (Gaston) advocated the overthrow of the corrupt Liberal Party administration because of the wholesale fraud and terrorism during the elections of 1949. In the meeting of May 5, 1950, he (Gaston) disagreed with Eto (Federico Maclang) and Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) on the way of giving money to deserving families, saying that:

          Even if we have a million pesos now, we still would need same to buy arms and ammo, decisively improve our propaganda to spread our influence over all the country, improve the diet of our fighting soldiers to increase their fighting efficiency, all with a view to hastening the people's victory and end their suffering earlier. (Exh. O-91, par. 2)

          In the SEC meeting of September 29, 1950 "Greg" (Jose Lava) dissented from the majority decision rejecting the proposal that Boris (Angel Baking) be allowed to attend the Military Committee (MC) meeting. (Exh. O-339, par. 15).

          Apart from his routinary duties as General Secretary, other duties were assigned to Jose Lava under hisaliases.

Thus, as "Gaston", he was designated in the SEC's meeting of December 20, 1949 to take care of the editorial of the "TITIS", the official organ of the Communist Party; he was given supervision over women matters, and over political and educational matters, in the meetings of February 15, 1950 and April 14, 1950. "Gaston" was also in charge of Direct Party Propaganda, Curriculum and Analysis. As "Greg", he was appointed by the SEC as one of the 15 members of the Military Committee (MC). He was to supervise, as decided in the SEC meeting of April 14, 1950, the newly organized Technological Group. He was instructed by the SEC, in its meeting of September 15, 1950, to prepare a draft of the resolution for discussion before the Military Committee. In the meeting of the SEC on September 22, 1950, he was given power to review all the minutes and decisions of the National Education Commission (NEC) and only matters which he did not approve were to be taken up by the Secretariat.

          Jose Lava also attended and presided at meetings of the Communists and the HMB in his house in Tejeron, Makati. 10

          Jose Lava was the author of many articles and/or writings, among them: "Self-Appraisal by Gregorio Santayana," a handwritten outline; "Struggle against Awaitism, by Gregorio Santayana", also a handwritten outline, with a typewritten copy; "Outline of Strategy and Tactics"; "Strategy and Tactics"; "Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP"; "Outline on Milestones in the History of the CPP"; "Milestones in the History of the CPP", which is a part of the curriculum in the secondary course of the schools conducted by the CPP. The "Outline on Strategy and Tactics" and "Strategy and Tactics" were also in the secondary curriculum texts of the CPP. He is also the author of "Finance Opportunism, Its Basic Causes and Remedies", a portion of which reads: .

          ... There is no question that we cannot drastically eradicate finance opportunism within the Party and the National liberation movement it is leading, and thereby hasten the maturity of the revolutionary crisis and prepare the Party to create a clear and honest body of administrators and state functionaries and thereby maintain the power of the NEW DEMOCRACY that we are set to establish.

          Another work of Jose Lava is "Accounting of the People's Funds Received and Spent to Finance the Revolutions", a portion of which reads as follows:

          The Communist Party of the Philippines is leading the armed struggle for national liberation and the establishment of a New Democracy in order to crush the power of the exploiters, achieve power for the exploited classes and exercise such power for their benefit, and for those who are disposed to accept the new society ....

          Jose Lava also wrote other documents, among them his handwritten notes containing the territorial extent of Recos 1 to 7, and a plan of attack on the November 7, 1950 celebration; a list containing several persons (aliases) assigned to Recos 1 to 7 and to the Military, Pol-Ed, organizational and GHQ organs; a letter to Eto (Federico Maclang) on the reverse of a list containing names of Malaca_¤_an special agents. He also wrote letters to Party members concerning the activities of the Party and/or HMB — unmistakably indicating conspiracy or connection between him and other top HMB and CPP leaders in the field. Thus, "Gaston" (Lava) wrote a letter to Leo (Cesareo Torres) informing the latter that the stencils for "Ang Komunista" were already sent by NED-Out and that if Leo needed funds, he could ask from the NFC. In a letter of September 4, 1950 to Eto (Federico Maclang), "Gaston" (Lava) transmitted to Maclang three letters, on the reverse side of one which was a note of O. Beria (Maclang) asking who the writers were. In his letter of September 26, 1950 "Gaston" advised Eto (Maclang) to circularize all Recos about the conference of the RECO-Ed and G-3 before October 15. In his letter of September 12, Gaston asked the addressee Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) about the latter's self-appraisal, the Hospital Group, and the selection of two

additional members to help Luming (Iluminada Calonje or Salome Cruz).

          The foregoing findings of this Court are based mainly on documents presented as evidence during the trial. Those documents were taken: some from the third floor of the Mayflower Apartments, at Estrada and Pennsylvania Streets in Manila, which was then rented by appellant Lava when it was raided by peace officers on June 23, 1950; and the other documents from the different places that were raided by the MIS agents and the Manila Police on October 18, 1950, where most of the accused in these five cases were arrested. One of the places raided on October 18, 1950 was 683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, where appellant Lava was arrested along with his co-accused Federico Bautista, Simeon Rodriguez, Victorina G. Rodriguez and Pedro Vicencio. Numerous documents, books, and articles were seized at that place where Lava was arrested, and those documents were used as evidence during the trial of these five cases in the court below.

          Some of the documents thus seized, and which were presented as evidence, were in appellant Lava's handwriting, or were signed by him using his alias names. This is clearly established by the testimony of a handwriting expert that was presented by the prosecution. The conclusion of the handwriting expert was based on the specimens of Lava's handwriting which were used as standards in comparing with the handwriting and/or signature (in alias) of the appellant that appear in the documents that were presented as evidence against him. It is contended by appellant's counsel that no genuine specimen of Lava's handwriting was presented as standard for comparison. We do not see merit in this contention. We find that the standards for comparison that were used were the documents marked Exhibits FF-1 and FF-2. 11 Exhibit FF-1 is an application for employment signed by Jose Lava. The signature thereon was testified to by witness Eduardo Romualdez (now Secretary of Finance) as looking "like the signature of Jose Lava." Eduardo Romualdez was acquainted with the handwriting of Jose Lava, having received reports (Exh. FF), parts of which were in the handwriting of Jose Lava "not less than three or four times" while Jose lava, was a bank examiner. 12 Exhibit FF-2 is a cardboard containing a list of books requested by Jose Lava while the latter was detained in Bilibid Prison. Buenaventura Villanueva, to whom the list was given, testified that he saw Lava writing the list on the cardboard. What appears on Exhibit FF-2 is certainly a genuine specimen of Lava's handwriting.

          The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person, and has seen the person write. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. 13 The handwriting expert who made the comparison in this case positively identified the handwriting of Jose Lava on the documents presented as evidence against said appellant, specially the handwritten names of Gregorio Santayana, Gaston, Gaston Silayan, Gavino and Greg. 14

          Appellant Jose Lava did not take the witness stand to testify in his own behalf. Instead, he presented witnesses to testify on his good moral character, his strong convictions and his good citizenship. An accused, however, is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous good moral character and exemplary conduct. When a court believes that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, it must convict him notwithstanding evidence of his good moral character and previous exemplary conduct. 15

          We find that the evidence adduced during the trial has proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Jose Lava was one of the top leaders of the CCP, and that he was not only working to propagate the doctrine of communism in the Philippines but was actually promoting an armed uprising against the Government. He did not actually take to the field and participate in the armed attacks against constituted authorities, but in the positions that he held in the CCP, he actually promoted, maintained, and even directed the armed activities of the HMB which were aimed at overthrowing the Government and implanting a new system of government in the Philippines. As General Secretary of the CCP he signed, in his aliases, the communications or transmissions of the Secretariat to the HMB

and CCP leaders in the field. As We have stated in this opinion, there was a tie-up between the CCP and the HMB, and that the HMB was the military arm of the CCP. The CCP went underground sometime in November 1949. It was precisely during the latter part of 1949 and during the year 1950 (before the arrests of the accused in these five cases on October 18, 1950) when the HMB was most active in its armed operations against the Government — or against the elements of the Army, the PC and the Police, and against public officials and even against civilians. The evidence against appellant Lava shows that it was in 1949 and 1950 when he, in his capacity as one of the top leaders of the CPP, actively participated in the armed struggle being carried on by the HMB by sending directives and other communications to the leaders of the HMB and to the heads of the regional commands of the CPP who were operating in the field. He was, in fact, one of the leaders of the rebellion. He planned the attack for the November 7, (1950) anniversary celebration, which was to include the capture of towns near Manila and the liquidation of enemies in the City by the different regional commands.

          We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Jose Lava is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          2. Appeal of Federico Bautista

          We find it conclusively shown by the evidence that:

          Appellant Federico Bautista had used, or was known under, the aliases: F. Payat, Fred, Freddie, and Freding. He was arrested by the MIS agents and the police on October 18, 1950 at 683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, along with his co-accused Jose Lava, Simeon Rodriguez, Victorina G. Rodriguez and Pedro Vicencio. He joined the CPP on August 8, 1949. Testifying in his own behalf, he said that he joined the CPP because of the failure of the administration then to carry out the terms of the Amnesty Proclamation which he helped to bring about; and also because, of the ouster of six members of Congress from the central Luzon provinces who were elected in the 1946 elections, of the frauds and terrorism committed in subsequent elections and the graft and corruption in the government.

          He was a member of the National Finance Committee of the CPP, 16 of which committee Ramon Espiritu (co-accused) was the chairman, and Simeon Rodriguez (co-accused) was a ranking member. As such member of the National Finance Committee part of his duties and responsibilities was the procurement of supplies, such as arms, ammunitions, medicine, office supplies, clothing, etc., for the dissidents' (both of the CPP and of the HMB) organizations in the field. He became a member of the Military Committee of the CPP, with special assignment as Chief of Intelligence, GHQ. 17 He was also assigned to, and exercised authority over, the armed forces (AF [HMB]) in Manila and suburbs, which was called the City Command. He also had supervisory powers over the National Courier Division. 18

          This appellant did not actually take to the field and participated in the armed operations of the HMB, but he did staff work which to promote, maintain and direct the operations of the HMB. Thus, there was presented in evidence a letter 19 written by this appellant to Leo (co-accused Cesareo Torres), under date of July 10, 1950, transmitting the latest party decision regarding authorized daily subsistence allowance of personnel of the CPP organs, ranging from P1.00 to P1.20. Cesareo Torres is the head of the Technical Office in charge of propaganda. In a handwritten tabulation prepared by him, 20 which was sort of a financial statement, there is shown an amount spent for communications and for intelligence. It appears that of the total income of P8,006.80 for April, May and June 1950, 20% was allotted for ammunitions and 10% for intelligence. This financial statement, as finally published, was certified to by Johnny (co-accused Ramon Espiritu) as head of the National Finance Committee, and audited and approved by Tommy (co-accused Honofre Mangila). This document once more indicates clearly that the HMB was being supported

by the CPP.

          There is a document labelled "Memorandum on Intelligence", 21 a typewritten draft, which was shown to bear the pencil handwritten insertions and corrections made by appellant Federico Bautista, indicating that this draft was prepared by him. Portion of this document reads:

          Without deviating from the general orientation of expanding evenly along the four branches of intelligence, viz.: Political, economic, cultural and military, the emphasis for the present is on military intelligence both strategic and tactical. This is in conformity with and in direct pursuance of the Party's program of "all for expansion and the armed struggle." The mechanics of wresting power will eventually be a military struggle, we must have a continual basis by which we can estimate what the enemy intends to do and the tenacity with which they will implement these intentions singly and collectively.

          Appellant Federico Bautista was identified with the high councils of the CPP. He attended Politburo conferences. 22 Along with Ramon Espiritu and one Nicasio Pamintuan, he sat to try, and found guilty, one Domingo Clarin, a member of the HMB Trigger Squad, who was charged with having squealed regarding the hold-up of the Naric in Pulilan. Appellant Federico Bautista had previously assigned Clarin to guard Jose Lava. 23

          We have carefully studied the evidence for the prosecution and defense, as well as the argument of the counsel in the appellant's brief, and We believe that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Federico Bautista is one of the leaders of the rebellion jointly undertaken by the CPP and HMB. We agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          3. Appeal of Federico Maclang

          Appellant Federico Maclang was arrested on October 18, 1950 by agents of the MIS and the Manila Police at 1938 Interior 7, Felix Huertas, Manila, along with Julita Rodriguez and Felipe Engreso — the latter two being among those convicted by the lower court in these five cases, but Julita Rodriguez withdrew her appeal. He used the aliases: O. Beria, Eto, Olibas, Manuel Santos, Manuel Santa Fe and Ambrosia Reyes.

          The evidence conclusively shows that this appellant is a ranking communist, and he was responsible for the organization of the CPP in Manila and Rizal. He issued directives, plans and instructions to the different units of the CPP in the field that were working in close collaboration with the HMB in the latter's armed operations. By his own testimony he revealed that he is a confirmed communist. He declared that he was one of the organizers of the PKM (a peasants' organization) in Luzon, that he became a communist after studying thoroughly the principles of communism in relation to the economic and political conditions of the country; that he believes in the overthrow of "imperialism" and the establishment of a "new democracy" in the Philippines.

          It is shown by the evidence that:

          Appellant Maclang joined the CPP sometime in 1939; and he was a member of the Politburo from 1944 up to the time of his arrest on October 18, 1950. 24

          In the document labelled "Pagtuya sa Sarile", shown to have been written by him, 25 it appears that he was the Chief of the Organizational Bureau (OB) of the CPP from 1948 until the time of his arrest, and that as an organizer he was responsible for the organization of the Regional Commands (Recos) of the party. He was also one of the

members of the Secretariat, and as such he actively participated in the deliberations and decisions of the body.

          In several letters of Enteng (Luis Taruc) to him, which were identified during the trial, as well as in his letter to Enteng, a copy of which was found in his possession and was identified by him, 26 his membership in the Secretariat is clearly shown. As a member of the Secretariat he was assigned the supervision on all organizational matters, on the youth problems and activities, and also on military affairs. Likewise, he was assigned supervision over the Trade Union Division (TUD) and the trade union struggle; also he had supervision over the news section of the TITIS; and he was authorized by the Secretariat to review the decisions of the Regional Command (RECO) and, like appellant Jose Lava, only those decisions which he did not approve were taken up by the Secretariat. 27As chief of the Organizational Bureau he issued, or approved the issuance of, circulars, plans, and directives to the different organs of the CPP. 28

          This appellant prepared the document entitled "Impiltrasyon". 29 In this document he discussed the problems of infiltration and the methods or techniques to be followed by party members in infiltrating government offices, the armed forces, and the ranks of anti-communist groups, in connection with the underground work of the CPP and the HMB. He also prepared "Pakikibaka sa Pagani" 30 where he urged the peasants to fight for bigger crop shares, and the workers to fight for better wages, pointing out that the government cannot meet the demands of the working class so that the only alternative is to support the "People's Liberation Movement" and effect changes through armed struggle. He wrote the "Pangatawanan ang Kampanya sa Pagpalawak ng Ating Patanim at Pagpalitaw sa Inuhi". 31 where he states the policy of the CPP regarding the expansion of the production areas and the production of more crops to maintain and support the revolution and to prepare the masses for self-government.

          Likewise, he wrote the "Ang Kompiskasyon", a circular issued by the Organizational Bureau (OB), of which he was the head, to all the organizational units of the CPP, explaining the Party's theory of confiscation. This circular authorizes confiscation as a means to raise revenue for the "People's Liberation Movement". This circular lists the classes of individuals who are considered enemies of the revolution and whose properties may be confiscated. 32

          When this appellant was arrested on October 18, 1950, there were found in his possession documents which indubitably show the high positions that he occupied in the CPP and the direct connections that he had with the operations of the HMB. Thus, there is Exhibit N-52, which is a partial report of Reco 2 regarding military operations during the "Cry of Balintawak" celebration. In this report are stated the simultaneous HMB attacks at Camp Makabulos, Tarlac, and at Arayat in the evening of August 25, 1950. There are also Exhibits N-56-57 which are the reports from Reco 2 of the HMB attacks at barrio Capalad, Arayat on September 12, 1950, and at San Luis on September 13, 1950. There was found in his possession, when he was arrested, a file copy (Exh. N-202) of a letter addressed to his comrades in Regional Command No. 4, dated October 14, 1950. The original of this letter (Exh. M-292) was found at 1608-B Andalucia, apparently in transit through the National Courier Division. It should be noted that it is in 1608-B Andalucia where Salome Cruz, the Chairman of the National Courier Division, had her headquarters. In this letter appellant Maclang wrote:

          I received a letter to the SEC from Com Bonifacio, PBS, R-5, dated Oct. 10, 1950. Because of the urgency and because the Comca is leaving at 12:00 a.m. this day, I, as in charge of military matters of the SEC, in the absence of the SEC meeting I have rendered the following decision:

x x x           x x x           x x x

          ORDER: I hereby order to R-4 to take all action concerning all the requests of the letter of Com. Bonifacio to the SEC. Reject the idea of sending back these deserters (men and officers) to R-5 and I

am giving full authority to R-4 to arrest and try all these said deserters. All actions should be based on our military rulings.

          The letter of Comrade Bonifacio referred to in the above-quoted letter of appellant Maclang was found in his possession at the time of his arrest. A copy of this letter was found in the possession of the appellant Jose Lava when the latter was arrested at 683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, on October 18, 1950. 33 It was shown during the trial that this letter of appellant Maclang was transcribed from the stenographic notes taken down by Julita Rodriguez on her notebook (Exh. M-31-E). This Julita Rodriguez worked as a clerk with appellant-Maclang, and she was also arrested on October 18, 1950 along with Maclang and Felipe Engreso, another employee of Maclang. Both Julita Rodriguez and Felipe Engreso were also accused in these cases. The authority of appellant Maclang on military matters is made manifest in the above-mentioned letter.

          In another letter of appellant Maclang, which was his reply to the letter he received from one Plaridel, regarding the plan for attack on November 7, 1950 celebration, 34 he said:

          Re-celebration, I am glad that you are actively preparing to achieve the SEC objectives. We have no objections on the towns that you have stated including Mcy. Our only doubt here is Mrqn, because this is very near enemy camp, however, proceed to your preparation and we will help you on intelligence operations on said localities. In this connection, we have the opinion that Com. Pacing will cooperate with you in this task as we have been informed that he is coming to your place.

          Re-request on arms and ammos, we are not yet in a position to give you the assurance of aid, however, we are dealing with the smugglers to purchase these ammos to supply such operations. Because it is not very sure, it will be better for the Recos to cooperate on the preparation of ammos.

          There are letters of appellant Maclang to Luming (Salome Cruz), one of the accused, which were presented in evidence, where he gave her orders and instructions regarding the dispatch of couriers to the regional commands and the activities of the National Courier Division. 35 Documents were also presented, which appear to have been issued or approved by the Organizational Bureau of which this appellant was the chief, dealing with the methods of improving the communication system of the CPP. 36 All these indicate that appellant Maclang had also supervision over the National Courier Division (NCD) of the CPP.

          Appellant Maclang, in his defense, denied knowledge about the HMB raids and ambushes. We find, however, overwhelming evidence that disproves his claim. The evidence clearly shows that he participated directly in planning, coordinating, supporting, and approving the HMB raids, attacks and ambushes. He was a member of the Secretariat of the CPP and participated in its meetings. He was in charge of the military affairs of the CPP; he gave orders to the Recos to attack the government forces; he approved the plans of attack against the City of Manila and towns around Manila on November 7, 1959; he received reports of HMB raids and attacks. All these make him, in contemplation of law, a leader of the rebellion.

          There is, to Us, no doubt that by the high positions he held in the CPP, appellant Federico Maclang was one of the leaders of the CPP that promoted, maintained and directed the armed operations of the HMB to overthrow the Philippine government. We agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          4. Appeal of Ramon Espiritu

          Appellant Ramon Espiritu was arrested by the agents of the MIS and the Manila Police on October 18, 1950 at 1608-B Andalucia Street, Manila, along with Salome Cruz, Rosario Vda. de Santos, Naty Cruz, Aurora Garcia, Lamberto Magboo and Josefina Adelan. He was known by the alias "Johnny".

          In his written statement, 37 he admitted that he was a member of the Politburo and the Chairman of the National Finance Committee of the CPP. The evidence shows that he was a member of the Secretariat of the CPP, and he participated in the deliberations and decisions of that body. 38 He was also one of the 15 members of the Military Committee (MC). 39 He was the Politburo and Secretariat Supervisor of the National Courier Division. 40 He had been assigned to various important positions in the CPP, like the supervision of Trade Union Division (TUD) and the trade union struggle, together with his co-accused Federico R. Maclang. 41 He was also assigned to the City Committee to reorganize the City Committee and the City Command. 42 He was likewise assigned to supervise Luming (co-accused Salome Cruz) in taking care of the sick comrades coming from provinces. 43 He attended meetings of the Communists and HMB. He was one of those who tried Huk member Domingo Clarin, assigned to the Trigger Squad of the HMB, and found him guilty of having squealed regarding the holdup of the NARIC at Pulilan. 44

          In his defense appellant Espiritu testified that he had nothing to do with the HMB raids and ambushes. Seemingly, to justify his membership in the Communist Party, this appellant discussed the general history of labor and its unsavory relations with capital, for which he blamed the feudal economy that had pervaded the economic life of the Filipino people. He candidly recounted his efforts in trying to understand the cause of the people's economic ills, and the efforts of labor unions in demanding better wages and living conditions for laborers.

          Considering the tie-up between the CPP and the HMB, there can hardly be any question that appellant Ramon Espiritu, member of the Politburo, of the Secretariat, and of the Military Committee, of the CPP, had actively participated in promoting and maintaining the armed operations of the HMB, along with top CPP leaders, Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, and others. We agree, also, with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          5. Appeal of Salome Cruz

          Appellant Salome Cruz, wife of appellant Ramon Espiritu, was arrested on October 18, 1950 at 1608-B, Andalucia St., Manila. She was known by her two aliases: Luming, and Iluminada Calonje in her written statement, she admitted that she was the Chairman of the National Communication Division (NCD) of the CPP from November, 1949 to May, 1950. 45

          Documentary evidence shows her various positions in the CPP, namely: Acting Chief of the Central Post of the Communications Division and in charge of Sub-Posts; In-charge of Couriers; In-charge of finance from November, 1949 to May 17, 1950; In-charge of all Central Committee cadres when they came to Manila for medical attention; In-charge of sick comrades coming from provinces under the supervision of Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) in the National Commission; and Chairman of the Hospital Group to take care of the sick and wounded from the City and provinces. 46

          The evidence further shows that Salome Cruz wrote several notes and/or documents showing her activities in the National Communication Division, Hospital Group and other party organs. Thus, on July 4, 1950, she made handwritten notes on " Sub-Posts" containing names (aliases) of regular and irregular couriers of RECO 1 to 7, Dist. No. 5 and Pangasinan; on July 5, 1950, she also made notes on "Regular na Dating at alis ng mga Korriers sa NCD napunta sa bawat Recos", which show the dates of arrivals and departures of the couriers for Recos 1 to 7 Dist. No. 4 Pangasinan and Cavite; on May 5, 1950 she wrote a letter to Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) informing the latter of the

arrival and departure of couriers of RECO 1 and the availability for distribution of the April 12 and 30 issues of TITIS; she also wrote letters to Beria (co-accused Federico Maclang), Payat and Fred (co-accused Federico Bautista), and Berting (co-accused Lamberto Magboo), regarding couriers and the activities of the National Communication Division (NCD). 47 She also made handwritten notes on the National Communication Division (NCD) Consolidated Report, showing the income and expenses from May 1 to May 17, 1950 of the Central Post and the Outposts; and a letter to Charing (co-accused Rosario C. Vda. de Santos) on May 17, 1950 instructing the latter to check up the Sub-Posts. 48

          In her brief, appellant Salome Cruz claimed, among other things, that the trial court erred in convicting her as principal, despite the fact that her participation was only on inconsequential details, and her guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

          There is no evidence to show that appellant Salome Cruz actually took part in the raids, attacks and ambushes perpetrated by the HMB. It cannot be said, however, that her role in the plan to overthrow the Government was inconsequential, she having been in charge of communications, transmitting orders and directives of the Politburo and Secretariat to the HMB in the field until May 1950; she being in charge of couriers, making notes of regular and irregular couriers, their arrivals and departures; she being in charge of the Hospital group to take care of the sick and wounded from the city and provinces. These facts show that she was cooperating actively in promoting and maintaining the armed activities of the HMB, considering the tie-up between the CPP and the HMB. The maintenance of communications between the top leaders of the CPP and the units operating in the field is very essential in the success of the rebellion. It is in this connection that this appellant played a very important role.

          We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Salome Cruz is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and she should be punished accordingly.

          6. Appeal of Rosario C. Vda. de Santos

          Appellant Rosario C. Vda. de Santos was arrested by the agents of the MIS and the Manila Police, together with co-accused Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Naty Cruz, Aurora Garcia, Lamberto Magboo, and Josefina Adelan, in these five cases, at 1608-B Andalucia, Sampaloc, Manila, on October 18, 1950.

          The evidence shows that:

          Appellant Rosario C. Vda. de Santos uses the alias "Charing". In her testimony, however, she claims that her real name is Aurelia Cayetano. She was designated by the Secretariat of the CPP In-charge of Outpost of the National Communication Division, with the duty to maintain discipline among couriers coming from without. 49 She worked under Salome Cruz (Luming) who was the Chairman of the National Communications Division (NCD) of the CPP. This appellant was in charge of checking the irregular couriers for Regional Commands, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Pangasinan. 50 She was a staff member of the NCD, and she participated in the NCD meetings, took down minutes, and rendered reports. She made reports to the head of the NCD. One such report says: 51

          Naisasagawang maayos na pagtanggap sa lahat ng dumating at maayos na pagalis ng couriers.

          Another report was that one she made on July 12, 1950, about the outpost: 52

(a) Reco 1, means of communication still good and 2 couriers arrived June 25 and departed July 4.

(b) Reco 2, — The road is still clear and the couriers of Pangasinan were already established there,

thru Com. Piping.

(c) Reco 3 — The road is difficult that is the reason why the Post at San Jose is no longer used but that of San Rafael.

(d) Reco 4 — The road is difficult connection severed but D-4 is already connected. (Exh. 159-162).

          As chief of the Outpost, she made, on August 19, 1950, the following report: 53

(a) Reco 1 — Couriers did not arrive, so no report.

(b) Reco 2 — Couriers arrived as the PC are out daily in the field ....

(c) Reco 3 — Road is also difficult.

(d) Reco 4 — Road is not difficult, but no definite Post for the couriers.

(e) District No. 4 — 2 weeks no arrival of couriers but special couriers in Com. Amat (now under arrest) arrived on 12 July '50.

(f) Cavite — Did not arrive last Sunday while the agreement was Saturday.

          In a letter to her co-accused Luming (Salome Cruz), she stated that she knew the circumstances surrounding the killing, and the murderers of Norberto Icasiano, Mayor of Bulacan. 54 She even mentioned that she met the deceased's brother in a school house in Malolos, Bulacan, and that she had to hide her face behind her umbrella in order to avoid being recognized.

          Various documents were shown during the trial which were written by her, and that they were written during meetings of the leaders of the CPP. 55

          In her defense, this appellant testified that her co-accused Ramon Espiritu requested her to stay with him as a household help with a salary of P10.00 a month; that besides preparing food, she was also assigned the duty of recording the letters delivered to and received at that place; that her real name is Aurelia Cayetano, but she was using the name of Rosario C. Vda. de Santos because she was a wanted woman by the Japanese during the occupation for having aided the guerillas, and she was known by that name among her friends even after the liberation. She admitted that the name "Charing" was hers, but claimed that she did not know the persons writing to her and that they were writing to her because she was the one always in the house.

          We find it proven that this appellant was a staff member of the National Courier (or Communication) Division of the CPP, and that she checked and made reports on the arrival and dispatch of couriers. The lower court declared her guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. In Our appraisal of the evidence, however, We find that she was merely executing the orders or commands of others who are superior to her in the organizational set-up of the CPP. Considering that her activities took place while the CPP was underground, and during the period when the armed operations of the HMB were taking place, We find her guilty as a mere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and should be punished accordingly.

          7. Appeal of Angel Baking

          Appellant Angel Baking was arrested by the agents of the MIS and of the Manila Police in his office at Room 504 Samanillo Building, Escolta, Manila, on October 19, 1950, along with Marciano de Leon who is also one of the accused in these cases. His house at No. 1518 Calixto Dayco, Paco, Manila, was also raided. From his office and his residence many books, documents, and other papers were seized, which proved that this appellant was a confirmed communist and was having close connections with leaders of the CPP. Some of the books found in his residence are: "The Third Five Year Plan" by V. Molotov; "Reminiscence of Lenin" by C. Zetkin; Marx and Engels (Selected correspondence); "Heroic Lenin-grad"; "Theory of the Agrarian Question (Lenin); "Stalin" (G. I. R., James; "Constitution of the Kirghis Soviet Socialist Republic"; "The Class Struggle in France"; "Biographical Compilation of Communist Leaders outside the Soviet Unions", etc. There are also found reading materials labelled: "Comparative Outlines of Communism and Capitalism showing advantages of communistic ideology"; "Blue Record containing outline of the Taruc story" (this contains draft of Taruc story for filming and publication); "Political Economy" (typewritten — this was shown to be used as text for HMB studies); "Stalin and the National Colonial Question" by John Blake; etc.

          We find, by the evidence, that:

          Appellant Angel Baking used the aliases: Bayan, B. and Boriz. He joined the communist party in April, 1949, although he had been identified with the leaders of the CPP since the early part of 1944. 56 He had been associated with top communists like Jorge Frianeza, Luis Taruc, Federico Bautista, Simeon Rodriguez and Jose Lava. When the Technological Group (TG) of the CPP was organized, it was placed under the immediate supervision of Boriz (Angel Baking) although the final supervision was under Greg (Jose Lava). 57

          In the meeting of the Secretariat of the CPP on September 29, 1950, the attendance of Boriz in the meeting of the Military Committee was discussed, and it appears in the record: "Com. Boriz is a competent technologist, is ready to go out and ready to stay in the field as the Party decides." 58 The Secretariat of the CPP assigned him to head the Special Warfare Division under the GHQ. 59 As head of the Special Warfare Division under the GHQ, appellant Angel Baking wrote a memorandum for the Secretariat regarding the immediate installation of a wireless communication system between the GHQ and the Secretariat. Some paragraphs of the memorandum read as follows:

          Briefly the main point to be dealt with pertains to equipment, its procurement, technical description, distribution, installation, operation and maintenance; technical personnel who will participate in the solution of the technical aspects of the problems; the Code system, which is an integral part of the WCS; and the non-technical implications of the problems.

          Because of the underground nature of the system, several problems not met in the legal installation of this system creep to the surface. The equipment itself is conditioned by abnormal factors which are not met ordinarily; the personnel is difficult to enlist; and the installation, operation and maintenance of the system become unduly handicapped and difficult to perform.

          Since the transmitting unit in Manila cannot be fully used without risking its immediate detection by the enemy, transmissions to the field from HQ (Manila) may partly be coursed thru the legitimate radio stations. This has always been done before, and there is no reason why it cannot be developed now. The essential requirements for this measure would be:

          (1) A cadre to infiltrate the Corps of broadcasters in the radio stations, which may be

assigned to the Cultural Group. This cadre should get a position as broadcaster at specific hours, either as station announcer or newscaster for the newspaper or time buyers at the stations;

          (2) This cadre should be given a code system thru which whatever message to be transmitted, may be coursed.60

Appellant Baking admitted having prepared the foregoing draft but he claimed, in his testimony, that draft was prepared way back in May 1948 at the request of one Jorge Frianesa who was a ranking member of the CCP. It appears, however, that when his office in the Samanillo building was raided by the agents of the MIS and the Manila Police this document was found torn inside a waste basket, and this circumstance made the lower court conclude that he wrote the draft not in 1948 but shortly before the raid on October 19, 1950. The lower court further pointed out that his explanation was filmsy because of the numerous evidence which showed that he supervised the Technological Group and the Special Warfare Division at the GHQ of the CCP. We agree with the conclusions of the lower court in this respect.

          Besides there were found in his office at Room 504 Samanillo Building at the time of the raid several U.S. Army technical manuals on Cipher Systems and Advanced Military Cryptography, and these manuals have connection with the recommendation in his memorandum for the use of the code system for transmitting messages thru legitimate radio stations.

          There are still other documents which clearly indicate appellant Baking's cooperation with the leaders of the CCP in the furtherance of the plan to seize power. In the document, marked Exhibit L-33s, he made the following statement:

          To forestall errors in the planning for the future, the training of leading Cadres as economists should be intensified. It is more than likely that by the time CCP seized power, the struggle in Asia shall have been resolved.

          There was found in the possession of Simeon G. Rodriguez (one of the appellants in these cases), the document marked Exhibit O-254 where it appears that appellant Angel Baking acknowledged having received from the National Finance Committee of the CCP the sum of P45.00 for the Technological Group (TG) of which he was a member. Simeon G. Rodriguez is a member of the National Finance Committee of the CCP.

          At the time of his arrest, appellant Angel Baking was a foreign affairs officer in the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines. That he was using his position in the Department of Foreign Affairs for intelligence work — and the lower court calls this a manifestation of his "scheming mind" — may be gathered from what he wrote in his diary as follows:

          There was a tactical error in my transfer to the new office room. The office was supposed to be occupied by ambassadors and high-ranking officials. I transferred to it without insuring my hold on the important men of the department. Thus I opened my flank and left my rear unprotected, and made myself extremely vulnerable.

          Because of this, I find myself unprepared to handle that problem. Peter ordered Quiamco

that I be transferred back to where I came from.

          I also forgot that the important thing to remember is the unbroken and steady ....

          AGB (Exh. L-78e).

          There is another document found in Baking's residence at 518-B Calixto Dayco which was admitted by him to be his. This document contains entries which indicate his dealings with the CCP organizations and its members. The entries are as follows:

NFC ....................................... P200

Graciano ....................................... 190

Graciano ....................................... 100

Apolinario

....................................... 100

Talas ....................................... 100

SGR ....................................... 20

Abe ....................................... 50

Godong ....................................... 50

Lake ....................................... 50

Mario ....................................... 50

Lamang ....................................... 450

          The "NFC" has been shown to stand for National Finance Committee of the CCP, and "SGR" for Simeon G. Rodriguez, a member of the NFC of the CCP, who is also one of the appellants in the present cases. There were sheets of blank papers seized from 742 Colorado Street, Manila, the printing office of TITIS and the working place of Cesario Torres, also one of the appellants in the present cases, bearing signatures of "Apolinario", "Mariano P. Balgos" and "Luis Taruc".

          Considering the facts We have hereinabove-stated, We have no doubt in our mind that appellant Angel Baking as a confirmed communist, had aided in the efforts of the leaders of the CPP to promote and maintain the armed operations of the HMB to overthrow the government. The lower court found this appellant guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. We have noted that the role played by this appellant was that of a technician or adviser. Considering that he participated in the rebellion efforts of the CPP while he was holding a public office. We agree with the finding of the lower court, and he should be punished under the first paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code.

          8. Appeal of Lamberto Magboo

          Appellant Lamberto Magboo was arrested by the agents of the MIS and of the Manila Police at 1608-B Andalucia, Manila, on October 18, 1950, along with the accused Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Rosario C. Vda. de Santos, Naty Cruz, Aurora Garcia and Josefina Adelan. It must be noted that the place, 1608-B Andalucia, is the

headquarters of Salome Cruz who was the Chief of the National Courier Division of the CPP. The evidence shows that the other persons who were arrested in that place namely, Naty Cruz, and Josefina Adelan worked as couriers under Salome Cruz. Rosario C. Vda. de Santos also worked under Salome Cruz as in-charge of outpost. Aurora Garcia was employed by her aunt, Rosario Vda. de Santos, as a maid and that she was selling the TITIS.

          The evidence shows that:

          Appellant Lamberto Magboo used the aliases Berting and Eddie. He admitted that he was a courier of the CPP, and that he actually mailed letters and packages at the Bureau of Posts and at the post office at the Far Eastern University; and he delivered letters, boxes of medicines, canned goods, lanterns, and shoes, from 1608-B Andalucia Street (house of appellant Salome Cruz) to the La Mallorca Bus station, to the LTB station, at Altura Street, Sta. Mesa, at Divisoria Street, and at Celeridad Street in Pasay City. 61 He was a checker of the regular and irregular couriers of Recos 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and Dist. No. 4 Pangasinan, and was also a special courier of Dist. No. 4, c/o Reco 4. 62

          Considering that the Recos are the units of the CPP that are operating with the HMB in the field, such that the person who acts as courier from the headquarters of the National Courier Division of the CPP in Manila to these Recos was actually working and cooperating with the armed operations to overthrow the government. We find appellant Lamberto Magboo guilty as a mere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion, under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and he should be punished accordingly.

          9. Appeal of Nicanor Razon, Sr.

          Appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr., known also by the alias Elias Rubi, admitted that he had been a member of the CPP since July 1, 1945. Among the documents found at 1608-B Andalucia, Sampaloc, Manila, was the cadre registration and oath of this appellant as a member of the CPP. He was the secretary of Barangay I SECCOM (Sectional Committee) II of the District of Tondo, and later rose to the position of treasurer in the same committee. He helped in distributing the TITIS, the official organ of the CPP. 63

          The record does not show that this appellant had testified in his behalf, nor presented any evidence in his defense. In his brief before this Court, however, this appellant claims that the lower court erred in finding him guilty as an accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion, no evidence having been adduced to show that he had performed any act, which would constitute a cooperation in promoting the rebellion jointly undertaken by the CPP and the HMB.

          We find merit in the contention of this appellant. We find that the evidence against this appellant only shows that he is a member of the Communist Party, and that he had been secretary and later treasurer of SECCOM II of the District of Tondo. There is no evidence regarding his actual participation in the efforts of the leaders of the CPP and the HMB to promote the rebellion. His having distributed the TITIS, the official organ of the CPP, is at most an act in the category of a propaganda which in itself does not show that he advocated actual uprising against the Government. It has not been shown that he collaborated in the efforts to advance the cause of the rebellion. The fact that he is a member of the Communist Party and an officer of one of its committees is not a sufficient basis for declaring him guilty as an accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion.

          In the case of People vs. Hernandez, G. R. Nos. L-6025-6026 this Court held:

          ... We do not believe that mere membership in the Communist Party or in the CLO renders the

members liable either of rebellion or of conspiracy to commit rebellion, because mere membership and nothing more merely implied advocacy of abstract theory or principle without any action being induced thereby; and that such advocacy becomes criminal only if it is coupled with action or advocacy of action, namely actual rebellion or conspiracy to commit rebellion, or acts conducive thereto or evincing the same.

          We, therefore, declare that appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr. is not guilty as an accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion, nor can We hold him guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion. He should, therefore, be absolved of the charge against him in the information.

          Neither can We find him guilty of having committed a crime under the Anti-Subversion Law (R.A. No. 1700) which outlaws the Communist Party of the Philippines, because this law was enacted only in the year 1957, whereas the information against this appellant was filed on October 27, 1950. Again, in the case of People vs. Hernandez, supra, this Court held:

          On the other hand, Rep. Act 1700, known as the Anti-Subversion Act, which penalizes membership in any organization or association committed to subvert the Government, cannot be applied to the appellants because said Act was approved on June 20, 1957 and was not in force at the time of the commission of the acts charged against appellants (committed 1945-1950); the Anti-Subversion Act punishes participation or membership in an organization committed to overthrow the duly constituted Government, a crime distinct from that of actual rebellion with which appellants are charged.

          10. Appeal of Marcos Medina

          Appellant Marcos Medina was arrested by MIS agents on October 17, 1950 at 1028-B, Quezon Boulevard. He used the alias Hiwara. He admitted in his written statement 64 that he was a member of the Hukbalahap Squadron 25 with headquarters at Kandating, Candaba; that he became a corporal of the Huks in 1944; and that he was a member of the Organizational Committee, Reco 4, Laguna, from 1946 to 1949. 65 In 1949, he studied at the Central Institute of Technology, and while studying, he used to help HMB couriers Lydia (alias of Alicia Villegas), and Celong (alias of Marcelino Calma) in carrying things for delivery to Commander REG of Reco 4. 66In his testimony he stated that the Organizational Committee, of which he was a member, had the duty to go to the barrios to teach and convince the people to join the HMB. 67

          Testifying in his behalf, this appellant said that he was maltreated at Camp Murphy to make him sign the statement marked as Exhibits EE to EE-4. 68 However, Sotero Morales, who was the one who investigated him, testified that Marcos Medina did not complain of any maltreatment when he was investigated. 69

          We do not agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. There is no evidence that he actually participated in any of the raids and ambushes alleged in the information although he admitted that he was a Huk. The evidence shows that he simply helped HMB couriers. We hold, however, that his being a member of the HMB is a sufficient basis to find him guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion, punishable under Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code. In the case of People vs. Hernandez, supra, this Court held:.

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

from thraldom. By membership in the HMB, one already advocates uprising and the use of force, and by such membership he agrees or conspires that force be used to secure the ends of the party. Such membership, therefore, even if there is nothing more, renders the member guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion punishable by law.

          And when a Huk member, not content with his membership, does anything to promote the ends of the rebellion like soliciting contributions, or acting as courier, he thereby becomes guilty of conspiracy, unless he takes to the field and joins in the rebellion of uprising, in which latter case he commits rebellion.

          We therefore declare appellant Marcos Medina guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          11. Appeal of Cesario Torres

          Appellant Cesario Torres was arrested by the agents of the MIS and the Manila Police on October 19, 1950 at his residence at 742 Colorado St., Manila, along with his wife, Rosenda Canlas Torres, and his co-accused, Arturo Baking. From his house the agents seized subversive documents, and articles including a typewriter, a mimeographing machine, mimeographing ink, stencils, coupon bond papers. Some of these coupon bond papers were blank but bore the signature of Luis M. Taruc.

          The evidence shows that:

          Appellant Cesario Torres used the aliases: Leo and Leodones, and he was also known as Cesario Yacat Torres. He admitted being a member of the HMB and of the CPP, that he was head of the Technical Office under the Propaganda Branch of the CPP, and as the head of that office he was in charge of typing and mimeographing the CPP documents and leaflets, and the TITIS which was the official organ of the CPP. 70

          Documents were presented during the trial which clearly prove that this appellant was in regular communication with Federico Maclang, one of the top leaders of the CPP and of the rebellion. Thus, in one letter, he explained to Maclang why the issue of the TITIS for the previous week did not come out; and in another letter he informed Maclang that he would try to make the TITIS come out every Sunday morning. 71 In a letter to Maclang dated April 6, 1950, he inquired for the number of copies of "Suliranin ng mga Familia" that should be printed; and in another letter he was requesting from Maclang P18.40 for the printing of 600 copies of the "Mapagpalaya", the official organ of the HMB. 72 Using the name Leodones, this appellant wrote subversive poems calculated to arouse popular support for the cause of the CPP and the HMB. One such poem, entitled "Ang Dalawangpung Taon Buhay ng PKP", eulogized the CPP, advocated armed revolt against the government and the liquidation of Liberals, Nacionalistas, and priests. The other poems were "Gumising Ka Kabataan", "Maiksing Kasaysayan ng Kilusang Magbubukid sa Filipinas", "Ang Ikawalong Taong Kaarawan ng Hukbong Magpapalaya ng Bayan", and "Ang Sigaw ng Bayan Api". All these poems were published in the different issues of the TITIS. 73

          We find that appellant Cesario Torres played a very vital role in the promotion of the armed struggle that was jointly prosecuted by the CPP and the HMB. He was admittedly a member of both the CPP and the HMB. His membership with the HMB alone is a sufficient basis to hold him guilty of the crime of conspiring to commit rebellion. We believe, however, that he did more than to conspire with the leaders of the HMB and the CPP to commit rebellion. He was in charge of the publication and circulation of the TITIS which was the official organ the CPP, and of the "Mapagpalaya" which was the official organ of the HMB. It is through these two organs that the people were being

aroused to support the armed struggle against the government. While it is true that this appellant did not go to the field to take up arms, the provocative poems and articles that he wrote and published in the official organs of the CPP and the HMB were just as effective to prosecute the rebellion as the guns and other weapons used by the HMB in the field.

          We agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          12. Appeal of Arturo Baking

          Appellant Arturo Baking was arrested by the agents of MIS and the Manila Police on October 19, 1950 at 742 Colorado St., Manila, along with his co-accused Cesario Torres and the latter's wife, Rosenda Canlas Torres. He is the nephew of appellant Angel Baking.

          It is shown by the evidence that:

          Appellant Arturo Baking used the aliases Red Bell, Eduardo Santos, Arturo Calma and Ed. He became a member of the CPP in December 1949. 74 In August 1950 he was employed by his co-accused Cesario Torres as assistant in the publication center of the CPP at 742 Colorado St., Manila. He was one of those assigned as typist in the Educational Department of the CPP, it having been admitted by him that the publication center was under the Educational Department of the CPP. As assistant to Cesario Torres he helped in the printing, mimeographing and distribution of the TITIS, the official organ of the CPP; as well as in the printing, mimeographing and distribution of HMB documents. His work included the procurement of office supplies, and the keeping of records of CPP documents that had been printed and distributed to the different officials and organizational units of the CPP.75 This appellant had studied and finished the prescribed secondary course of the Communist Party, and was given a certificate, "Katibayan sa Pagaaral", attesting to his having satisfactorily completed such subjects as the "History of National Liberation Movement", "Dialektika ng Materialismo", "Political Economy", "Estado at Himagsikan", and "Ang Pagkakatatag ng Partido". 76 By his own declaration this appellant admitted having made studies about communism, took rigid tests in order to be accepted to the CPP, and that he believed a communist government should be implanted in the Philippines. In his testimony, he stated that he had developed a deep-seated hatred against the agents of the law because of the predatory acts that were committed by them on poor fishermen, and that on several occasions, especially at various checkpoints, he saw the harsh treatment done by the Constabulary soldiers to civilians. He bewailed the graft and corruption in the government. 77

          We have no doubt that this appellant is a confirmed communist, and that he was in full sympathy with the armed struggle being promoted by the leaders of the CPP and the HMB in order to overthrow the existing government of the Philippines. Upon appraisal of the evidence, however, We cannot agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. We find that he was the assistant of appellant Cesario Torres, who was entrusted with the publication and distribution of the official organs of the CPP and the HMB, as well as of the printing and distribution of the documents of these two organizations. Being an assistant of appellant Cesario Tores whom We have declared to be a principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, We hold that appellant Arturo Baking is guilty as a mere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion, under the second paragraph of the Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and he should be punished accordingly.

          13. Appeal of Simeon G. Rodriguez

          Appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez was arrested by the agents of the MIS and the Manila Polioe in his house at

683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, on October 18, 1950, along with Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Victorina G. Rodriguez and Pedro Vicencio.

          The evidence shows that:

          Appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez used two aliases: Lakindanum (Laquindanum) and Sammy. He was a member of the National Finance Committee of the CPP since October 21, 1949. 78 When he was arrested on October 18, 1950 there were found in his house some P42,376.00 in paper currency in different denominations. Of the money that was found in his house, it was conclusively shown that 65 P100-bills, 60 P50-bills, P145.00 in PNB circulating notes and $310.00 formed part of the money that were taken from the office of the Provincial Treasurer in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, when the HMB raided that town in the night of August 26, 1950. We have stated at the early part of this opinion that on the night of August 26, 1950 some 400 Huks raided Sta. Cruz. The cashier of the office of the Provincial Treasurer was forced by the Huks at gun point to open the vault of the provincial treasury from which the Huks took some P80,600.00. It happened that the Provincial Treasurer of Laguna, Mr. Balbino Kabigting, had a record of the serial numbers of the paper money that was deposited in the provincial treasury which were taken by the Huks, and after that raid Mr. Kabigting even issued a warning to the public about the loss of the money — mentioning in the warning the serial numbers of the money taken. It was found out that the serial numbers of the 65 P100-bills, of the 60 P50-bills, of the P145.00 PNB circulating notes, and of the $310 found in the house of appellant Rodriguez tallied with the serial numbers of the paper currency that was taken from the provincial treasury of Laguna. This appellant, in his testimony, declared that the paper money whose serial numbers tallied with those paper money that were taken from the provincial treasury of Laguna formed part of the money that Jose Lava (one of the appellant herein) brought to his house. Considering the high position that appellant Lava held in the CPP and the fact that the armed operations of the HMB were promoted and directed by the Secretariat of the CPP, of which Lava was a member, and the fact that appellant Simeon Rodriguez was a member of the National Finance Committee, it is easy to understand why Jose Lava brought to this appellant that money which was taken by the HMB from the provincial treasury of Laguna. Significantly, one of the evidence presented during the trial was a receipt, dated October 5, 1950, signed by Lakindanum in favor of Com. Torres (Casto Alejandrino, a well-known HMB commander) of Reco 4, acknowledging receipt of P32,740, $310, and P145 in PNB circulating notes. 79 It could be that Jose Lava made Rodriguez prepare that receipt when he delivered the money, and the receipt was intended to be sent to Com. Torres to assure the latter that the money was delivered to Rodriguez. That receipt was among the papers seized when these appellants were arrested. This is a clear indication of the connection of appellant Simeon Rodriguez to the armed operations of the HMB, and the coordinated work of the leaders of the CPP and of the HMB in the armed uprising.

          There are other documents clearly indicating the connection of appellant Rodriguez to the HMB commanders in the field: (1) There is a letter dated October 13, 1950, addressed to Com. Lakindanum (Simeon G. Rodriguez) coming from Com. Torres (Casto Alejandrino) wherein the latter acknowledged receipt of the letter and articles that were sent to him by Com. Lakindanum. This letter also instructed Lakindanum not to send the watches to Reco 4. 80 (2) There is another letter dated October 13, 1950, of Com. Lanao, addressed to Com. Lakindanum, wherein the former was requisitioning from Lakindanum a radio set. In this letter Com. Lanao, among others, said: "We would make the attempt to provide you with an extra ration of camote leaves when you visit us again". 81 This statement in the letter of Com. Lanao indicates that appellant Simeon Rodriguez used to visit the men in the field. (3) There is still another letter that came from Com. Amor, addressed to Com. Lakindanum, wherein the former acknowledged receipt of all the things, including a radio tester costing P30.00, that the latter had sent to him. 82(4) Then there is a letter written by herein appellant to Com. Beria (Federico Maclang) stating that he delivered the tester to Com. Reg in the absence from camp of Com. Torres. 83 (5) There is a receipt showing that appellant Rodriguez signed in the name of the National Finance Committee, acknowledging receipt of the amount of P705.00. 84 (6) There is still another receipt signed by herein appellant acknowledging receipt of P1,200 from the National Finance Committee, which was

prepared for accounting purposes. 85

          This appellant admitted, in his testimony, his close association with Jose Lava. He also said that he was inclined to believe in the tenets of communism and the use of force in case the people decide to take political power in their hands.

          We have carefully examined the evidence of the prosecution against this appellant, and also the evidence which he presented in his defense — consisting of his own testimony mainly denying the positive evidences against him and of the testimonies of witnesses vouching for his good character and the fact that he was a businessman — and We have arrived at the conclusion that this appellant is one of the top communist leaders who had promoted and maintained the armed operations of the HMB in the field. We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion; and he should be punished accordingly.

          14. Appeal of Marciano de Leon

          Appellant Marciano de Leon was arrested, together with Angel Baking at Room 504, Samanillo Building, Escolta, Manila, on October 19, 1950. He used the aliases Mar and Marcial. At the time of his arrest, he worked in the Personnel Section at the Headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary. He admitted having supplied his co-accused Federico Bautista with government documents and confidential information regarding the HMB from the PC Headquarters. These were: 86

1. Memorandum to all PC Commander re Huk infiltration.

2. Memorandum to all PC Commanders re Loyalty Status of all PC personnel.

3. Memorandum on PC-Civilian Relations.

4. List of PC Agents and their addresses.

5. List of persons wanted by the PC.

6. Letter on the subject: "Yellow Journalism."

7. U.S. Army Technical Manuals and Field Manuals.

          We concur with what the lower court said about this appellant: "Considering the nature of the documents he admitted in his confession to have been furnished by him to Federico Bautista, the contents of his confession and the accessibility to him of those documents by reason of his position in the Personnel Section of the Philippine Constabulary, the Court is inclined to believe that he also took part in the conspiracy to overthrow the government by armed struggle and did his bit by furnishing Federico Bautista with information and records regarding the HMB activities obtainable from the PC Headquarters." We do not agree with the lower court, however, that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion. Considering the top position of Federico Bautista in the CPP hierarchy, it cannot be denied that appellant Marciano de Leon, by giving the information hereinabove stated to Federico Bautista, had cooperated or helped in the prosecution of the armed rebellion. We hold this appellant guilty as a mere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion, under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the

Revised Penal Code, and should be punished accordingly.

          15. Appeal of Honofre Mangila

          We find, by the evidence, that:

          Appellant Honofre Mangila was arrested on November 22, 1950 at 215 Leveriza, Pasay City. He used thealiases Miller and Tommy. He admitted being a communist — in fact, he said he was proud to be a communist — and being a member of the Central Committee of the CPP. He was also a member of the Trade Union Division (TUD) of the CPP. In the meeting of the Secretariat of the CPP on September 1, 1950, appellant Mangila was appointed auditor of funds and books of account of the National Finance Commission (NFC). 87 He actually audited the financial statements of the NFC for the months of April, May and June, 1950; Mangila's auditing of the National Finance Commission's account was approved by the Secretariat in its meeting of September 22, 1950. He was also the chairman of the organizational department (OD) for Manila under the Organizational Bureau of the CPP. 88

          There is no question that this appellant is one of the top men in the hierarchy of the CPP. He was a member of the Central Committee which is the body second only to the National Congress of the CPP. When the National Congress is not in session it is this Central Committee that makes decisions for the party. While testifying in his behalf he revealed his strong communist party discipline when he declined to reveal, upon being cross-examined, the identity of the other members of the Central Committee, and the members of the National Congress and of the Politburo. While testifying he was very outspoken in indicting the existing economic and social order in the country, and asserted that it is only under the Communist Party when the laboring class can expect a bright future.

          During the trial letters signed by "Miller" or "Tommy", were presented in evidence. Those were letters addressed to Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) and to Luming (Salome Cruz) concerning financial matters, meetings and other activities in the CPP. 89

          Considering that it is the CPP, as We have shown, that promotes and maintains the armed operations of the HMB against the government, and considering that appellant Honofre Mangila is a member of the Central Committee which is the most powerful body in the CPP when its National Congress is not in session, and considering further that this appellant was even appointed auditor to audit the funds of the CPP, We believe that this appellant is one of the principal leaders of the rebellion as charged in the information. We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Honofre Mangila is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion and that he should be punished accordingly.

          16. Appeal of Cenon Bungay

          We find, by the evidence, that:

          Appellant Cenon Bungay was arrested by Vicente Roco of the 20th BCT and some members of the Manila Police on November 21, 1950, at 432 Isabel, Sampaloc, Manila. This appellant used the alias Rufing.

          In written statements, he admitted that he joined the Huks in 1946, and at the time of his arrest on November 21, 1950 he was the commander of the HMB in the province of Batangas and the G-3 of Field Command (FC) No. 3 of the HMB. While testifying in open court, he declared that as the HMB commander he had 1,300 fully armed men (equivalent to 4 HMB battalions) under him, and as a Huk commander he had been receiving directives from the higher authorities of the HMB. He revealed that Luis Taruc was the Supreme of the HMB. 90 He also admitted his direct

participation in an encounter between the HMB and the government forces in Plaridel, Bulacan, on March 27, 1950. He stated that in obedience to an order from Regional Command No. 4, he led his unit in the raid of San Pablo City on March 29, 1950, resulting in the death of Maj. Alicbusan. He said that their purpose was to overthrow the government by force, and to establish the "New Democracy." 91 He also declared that he joined the Huks in 1942 because of poverty; that his parents were tenants in Hacienda Bahay Pare at Candaba, Pampanga; that he stopped schooling after the 7th grade in order to help support his parents and ten brothers and sisters; that realizing the miserable conditions of the tenants, he joined the "Aguman Ding Talapagobra" (ADT), the aim of which was the amelioration of the tenants; that through this organization he realized that the tenants must organize to promote their welfare and to prevent the abuses of landlords. He further declared that in spite of the sacrifices of the Huks for 3 years during the Japanese occupation, the Huks representing the countless tenants, were ignored by the U.S. armed forces and by the Commonwealth Government; and having been harassed, persecuted and frustrated in their aims to ameliorate the condition of the masses, the Huks went underground. According to him the Huks felt more persecuted when Luis Taruc, the successful congressional candidate in 1946 of the Democratic Alliance, was denied his seat in Congress, and that they lost faith in the government due to the frauds and terrorism perpetrated in the elections that followed. 92

          Appellant Bungay admitted that the HMB had to use force in order to change the administration. He said that the men under him used arms given by the American soldiers and Communist sympathizers. He also revealed that while he was the Huk commander at Cavite, he had two encounters with government forces, one at Aliang, Malabon on February 18, 1950; and the other at Alfonso, Cavite, on February 22, 1950. These admissions were fully corroborated by Benjamin Advincula, a ranking officer and Secretary of Reco Command No. 4 of the HMB and by Ronald Dorsey, a former Huk member. 93

          There is no doubt that Cenon Bungay, as Huk commander, was also a leader in the rebellion. We agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

          17. Appeal of Pedro T. Vicencio

          Appellant Pedro T. Vicencio was arrested on October 18, 1950 at 683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila, along with Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Simeon Rodriguez and Victorina Rodriguez. He was also known as Pedring. In a statement, signed by him at Camp Murphy after his arrest, he admitted that he used to run errands, bringing foodstuffs, medicines and other supplies intended for the HMB, and also delivering packages that were labelled R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5, which stood for Reco-1, Reco-2, etc., respectively, to Andalucia Street where Rosario Vda. de Santos received them. 94 We have found, in this decision, that Rosario Vda. de Santos was working under Salome Cruz who was the chairman of the National Communications Division (NCD) of the CPP, and that she was in charge of an outpost, checking the irregular couriers for Recos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Pangasinan, and she was staying at 1608-B Andalucia, Sampaloc, Manila.

          Testifying in his own behalf, appellant Vicencio denied being a member of the CPP nor of the HMB, although he stated that at the time of his arrest, he was studying the principles of communism, and that he sympathized with the Huks. At the time of his arrest this appellant was 20 years old, and he was a first year Liberal Arts student. He admitted in his testimony that he delivered to Angel Baking notes sent by Simeon Rodriguez. 95

          While it is not shown that this appellant actually took part in the armed operations of the HMB, his having delivered foodstuffs, medicines and other supplies which were intended for the HMB, and his having delivered packages to Rosario Vda. de Santos who was in charge of the outpost where couriers go to deliver, or to get, letters or articles intended for RECOS in the field, clearly indicate that this appellant was actively cooperating in the efforts of

those promoting the rebellion. Being 20 years of age and a college student, it can be expected that he knew that he was doing something for the communists and the Huks. More so, because he was living with Simeon G. Rodriguez, one of the top leaders of the CPP. He admitted having delivered notes sent by Simeon Rodriguez to Angel Baking, another top leader of the CPP. The house of Rodriguez was the meeting place of CPP leaders. lawphil.ñet

          We find this appellant guilty as a mere participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion, under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and he should be punished accordingly.

          18. Appeal of Felipe Engreso

          Appellant Felipe Engreso was arrested on October 18, 1950 at 1938 Int. 7, Felix Huertas St., Manila, along with Federico Maclang and Julita Rodriguez. At the time of his arrest, he was about 15 years old, and was living as a houseboy of one known to him as Ambrosio Reyes.

          It appears that in a written statement that he signed before the MIS agents, this appellant admitted having delivered letters to Mr. Espiritu (Ramon Espiritu) at Andalucia St., Manila; to Cesar (Cesario Torres) at 742 Colorado, Manila; and to Gaston (Jose Lava) at Celeridad St., Pasay City. It also appears in that statement that he used to get the TITIS from Colorado St. (residence of Cesario Torres and the CPP publication center) to deliver them to Andalucia Street (residence of Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz and Rosario Vda. de Santos) and retained one copy for Ambrosio Reyes. 96

          Testifying in his behalf, appellant Engreso declared that before his arrest he never knew that his master, Ambrosio Reyes, is the accused Federico Maclang. He came to know his master to be Federico Maclang only when they were already detained at Muntinglupa. 97

          Upon a careful study of the evidence against this appellant, We have come to the conclusion that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This appellant was only around 15 years old. We accept his testimony that he did not know that his master was Federico Maclang, and that all the time he knew him to be Ambrosio Reyes. He was simply a houseboy of Maclang. He had to obey orders to deliver letters or deliver copies of TITIS. There is no showing that he knew the contents of the letters that he was made to deliver, or that he knew the addressees to be communists. The Solicitor General recommends the acquittal of this appellant upon the ground that there is no sufficient evidence to show his criminal intent. We agree with the Solicitor General. We, therefore, acquit appellant Felipe Engreso of the charge against him in the information.

x x x           x x x           x x x

          IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby, modified, as follows:

          1. In G.R. No. L-4974

          Appellants Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz and Angel Baking are found guilty as principals in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and every one of them is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ten (10) years of prision mayor, and a fine of P20,000, with the accessories provided by law, but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay their proportionate shares of the costs.

          Appellant Rosario C. Vda. de Santos is found guilty as a participant in the commission of the crime of simple

rebellion under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and she is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, with the accessories provided by law, and to pay her proportionate share of the costs.

          2. In G.R. No. L-4975

          Appellant Cesario Torres is found guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision mayor, and a fine of P20,000, with the accessories provided by law, but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

          Appellants Lamberto Magboo and Arturo Baking are found guilty as participants in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and every one of them is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, with the accessories provided by law, and to pay their proportionate shares of the costs.

          Appellant Marcos Medina is found guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion under Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of five (5) years, four (4) months, and twenty (20) days of prision correccional and a fine of P2,000, with the accessories provided by law, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

          Appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr. is hereby acquitted, with costs de oficio.

          3. In G.R. No. L-4976

          Appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez is found guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision mayor and a fine of P20,000, with the accessories provided by law, but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

          Appellant Marciano de Leon is found guilty as a participant in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor with the accessories provided by law, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

          4. In G.R. No. L-4977

          Appellants Honofre Mangila and Simeon Bungay are found guilty as principals in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and every one of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ten (1O) years of prision mayor, and a fine of P20,000, with the accessories provided by law, but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay their proportionate shares of the costs.

          5. In G.R. No. L-4978

          Appellant Pedro T. Vicencio is found guilty as a participant in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of

seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, with the accessories provided by law, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

          Appellant Felipe Engreso is hereby acquitted, with costs de oficio.

          The Court takes judicial notice, that, except for appellants Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Sr., Pedro T. Vicencio, and Felipe Engreso who are on provisional liberty under bail, all the rest of these appellants are detained, and their detention dates back as of August, October or November, of the year 1950, as the case may be. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is hereby directed to determine the period of detention that should be credited to the appellants who are under detention, pursuant to the provisions of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, and to release immediately those appellants who are entitled to be credited with the period of their detention equal to the penalty of imprisonment imposed upon them in this decision. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez and Capistrano, JJ., concur.Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., took no part.Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J., are on leave.

Separate Opinions

FERNANDO, J., concurring:

          I join my colleagues in giving assent to the well-written and exhaustive opinion of Justice Zaldivar, speaking for this Court, distinguished as it is by grasp of the relevant facts meticulously examined and narrated with clarity as well as of the controlling legal principles that call for application. Particularly noteworthy to my mind is the re-affirmation of our doctrine in People v. Hernandez, 1 with the present Chief Justice, who penned the opinion, stressing the primacy of liberty even when the offense charged is against the security of the state.

          Precisely because of what I deem to be high estate that must be accorded liberty even in times of trouble and distress, I feel that additional words might not be amiss. It would appear to me that the prosecution of the accused herein having been started at a time when there appeared to be a clear danger to democratic institutions, the belief seemed to have gained credence in certain circles that as far as these accused were concerned, there was no need to apply with rigor their constitutional rights.

          That to me is a false thesis. It implies the weakness of a democracy to defend itself democratically. Under such view, a government could be spared the threat from internal subversion, but what is saved is no longer the government contemplated by the framers and the people who adopted the Constitution.

          Well has Justice Bengzon observed in his separate opinion in Nava v. Gatmaitan: 2 "And in my opinion, one of the surest means to ease the uprising is a sincere demonstration of this Government's adherence to the principles of the Constitution together with an impartial application thereof to all citizens, whether dissidents or not. Let the rebels have no reason to apprehend that their comrades now under custody are being railroaded into Muntinglupa, without benefit of those fundamental privileges which the experience of the ages has deemed essential for the protection of all persons accused of crime before the tribunals of justice. Give them the assurance that the judiciary, ever mindful of

its sacred mission will not, thru faulty cogitation or misplaced devotion, uphold any doubtful claims of Governmental power in diminution of individual rights, but will always cling to the principle uttered long ago by Chief Justice Marshall that when in doubt as to the construction of the Constitution, "the Courts will favor personal liberty" ..."

          Justice Tuason in another opinion rendered in that case would apply the constitutional rights with undeviating rigidity: "To the plea that the security of the State would be jeopardized by the release of the defendants on bail, the answer is that the existence of danger is never a justification for courts to tamper with the fundamental rights expressly granted by the Constitution. These rights are immutable, inflexible, yielding to no pressure of convenience, expediency, or the so-called "judicial statesmanship." The legislature itself cannot infringe them, and no court conscious of its responsibilities and limitations would do so. If the Bill of Rights are incompatible with stable government and a menace to the Nation, let the Constitution be amended, or abolished. It is trite to say that, while the Constitution stands, the courts of justice as the repository of civil liberty are bound to protect and maintain undiluted individual rights." 3

          It is extremely difficult to find cause for disagreement with the above views for they accord with the fundamental postulate of this Government, namely, that the Constitution is supreme and this Court, as its ultimate guardian, is called upon to apply its provisions in the determination of actual cases and controversies before it. Well has it been observed that it exists precisely to assure the protection of the citizen and the maintenance of his constitutional rights. The exercise of this official duty requires that it gives effect to the supreme law even to the extent in clear cases of setting aside legislative and executive action.

          This is not to say that the judicial process takes place in a social void. The existence of an emergency is not a factor to be reckoned with lightly. The task of this Court in adjusting or harmonizing individual rights with the safety of the state, ordinarily one of utmost delicacy, then becomes even more formidable. The fact remains however that the regime established here is one of liberty of justice and of democracy. Belief in the theory of liberty is not merely an echo of a discredited past. It remains a fighting faith. It is a proclamation of the vitality of the democratic process. It rests on the conviction deeply and profoundly held that given the choice, a free people will prefer to remain free.

          This is not to deny that force has to be met with force. This is not to deny that the courts are not to hamper the efforts of the executive agencies to put down subversion in whatever form it may manifest itself and wherever it may make its appearance. This is not to deny that on the executive and its agents is conferred the authority to cope with rebellious activities. Such authority must be equal to the grave responsibility thus confronting it.

          Nonetheless, even under such circumstances, our duty is clear. It is not for us to abdicate our constitutional function. We cannot, just because of the danger sanction every step the executive authorities might take. If we do so, we would lend comfort to the very forces seeking to undermine the government. They can assert, and with plausibility, that the Constitution no longer obtains. It is precisely in times of emergency that the role of the judiciary as guardian of constitutional rights becomes more pressing and inescapable, if the faith and confidence of the people in democracy in action are to be preserved unimpaired.

          Since to my mind such a view is implicit in the opinion of Justice Zaldivar, even if not expressly avowed, I yield my concurrence.

Footnotes

1G.R. Nos. L-6025 and L-6026, July 18, 1956; 99 Phil. 515, 520, 541, 547, 551.

299 Phil. 515, 535.

3Appellee's brief, pp. 180-182.

4People vs. Camerino, L-13484, May 20, 1960; U. S. vs. Cernias, 10 Phil. 682.

5U. S. vs. Santiago, 41 Phil. 793.

6People vs. Hernandez, supra; People vs. Romagosa, supra; and People vs. Santos, supra.

7Tan It vs. Sun Insurance Office, 51 Phil. 212.

8Pages 61-62, t.s.n., Reconstitution.

9Pages 33, 37, t.s.n., Reconstitution.

10Pages 429-432, t.s.n., Vol. III.

11Page 548, t.s.n., Vol. III.

12Page 410, t.s.n., Vol. III.

13Sec. 23, Rule 132, Rules of Court.

14Page 564, t.s.n., Vol. III; Cho Chun Chac vs. Garcia, 47 Phil. 530; Alejandrino vs. Reyes, 53 Phil. 974.

15Anderson vs. State, 72 Ga. App. 487; 34 S.E. (2d) 110; Underhill Criminal Evidence, 5th ed., Vol. I, p. 430.

16Exhibit O-13-14, par. 1.

17Exhibit O-106-107, par. 2.

18Exhibit M-1726.

19Exhibit K-206.

20Exhibit O-582-589.

21Exhibit M-1806-1813.

22Page 429, t.s.n., Vol. III.

23Pages 433-434, t.s.n., Vol. III.

24Page 803, t.s.n., Vol. III.

25Exhs. N-77; N-212.

26Exhs. M-421-422; N-60.

27Exh. M-31-32, par. 18.

28Exh. O-473-474.

29Exh. M-280-283.

30Exh. M-248-251.

31Exh. N-257-268.

32Exhs. N-269-271; M-1585.

33Exhs. N-175-176; O-480.

34Exh. K-1396-1397.

35Exhs. M-244-254; M-258-267; M-269.

36Exhs. N-265-268; M-1570.

37Exhibit CC.

38Exhs. O-91-92, par. 2; O-308-309, par. 2; pages 500-512, t.s.n., Vol. III.

39Exh. O-106-107.

40Exhibit M-25-26.

41Exhibits O-99-101, par. 3; O-312, par. 4.

42Exhibit O-334-337, par. 6.

43Exhibit O-643, par. 9.

44Pages 433-434, t.s.n., Vol. III.

45Exhibits HH-4 to HH-8; page 780, t.s.n., Vol. III.

46Exhibits L-318; M-1330-1331; M-21; O-441-444; O-643, par. 9; O-334-337, par. 10; pages 19, 26, t.s.n., Vol. III.

47Exhibits M-1241; M-1242-1243; M-1268-1269; M-248, M-260; O-449; M-1257, M-1270 and M-1369.

48Exhibits M-1310; M-1365-1366.

49Exhibits C-318, par. 1; N-535-538.

50Exhibits M-1241, M-1255, M-1743, M-1765-1768.

51Exhibit M-54.

52Exhibit M-159-162.

53Exhibits M-152-153.

54Exhibit M-80.

55Pages 778-779, t.s.n., Vol. III; Exhibits M-54, M-56, M-57, M-58, M-60, M-61, M-65.

56Exhibit O-281, par. 6.

57Exhibit O-316-317, par. 3.

58Exhibit M-35-38, par. 15.

59Exhibit M-35-38, par. 15.

60Exhibit L-33-P to L-33 Pa. See also Exhibits L-33-c and L-33-d which had been shown to be Baking's handwritten outline of his MEMO on the WCS.

61Exhibits GG to GG-10.

62Exhibits M-1241, M-1255, M-1244, M-1290-91; Pages 671- 673, t.s.n., Vol. II.

63Exhibits DD-1, M-1423; Pages 654-657, t.s.n., Vol. II.

64Exhibits EE to EE-4.

65Page 743, t.s.n., Vol. III.

66Exhibits EE-2 to EE-3.

67Pages 657-658, t.s.n., Vol. II.

68Pages 744-746, t.s.n., Vol. III.

69Page 669, t.s.n., Vol. III.

70Exhibits V-V-4; Pages 626-628 t.s.n., Vol. II.

71Exhibits M-1054 and M-1056.

72Exhibits M-171 and M-172.

73Exhibits K-189, M-1660, M-1666 to M-1670.

74Exhibit W-3, par. 7.

75Exhibits W, W-1, K-208; Page 841, t.s.n. Vol. III.

76Exhibit L-145.

77Pages 834-836, t.s.n., Vol. III.

78Exhibit O-13-14, par. 1.

79Exhibits O-572, O-572a-1, O-572 ab-1.

80Exhibit O-577.

81Exhibit O-578.

82Exhibit O-576.

83Exhibit O-505-506.

84Exhibit M-10.

85Exhibit O-9.

86Exhibits BB to BB-7, p. 610, t.s.n, Vol. III.

87Exhibit O-643, par. 8; Pages 715, 729, t.s.n., Vol. III.

88Exhibits Z to Z-11.

89Exhibits M-570, M-1472-1474.

90Exhibits LL to LL-7; Pages 670, 673, t.s.n. Vol. III.

91Page 428, t.s.n., Vol. I; Page 671, t.s.n., Vol III.

92 Pages 634-35, 637, 666, 689, t.s.n., Vol. III.

93Pages 668-670, t.s.n., Vol. III.

94Pages 172, 196, 198, t.s.n., Vol. II; Page 682, t.s.n., Vol. IV; Pages 3 and 6, t.s.n., Vol. III.

95Exhibits JJ to JJ-7; Pages 3 and 6, t.s.n., Vol. III.

96Exhibits SS to SS-3.

97Pages 620-623, t.s.n., Vol. III.

FERNANDO, J., concurring:

1Phil. 515 (1958).

290 Phil. 172 (1951).

3At p. 206.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

People vs Hernandez

People v. HernandezFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People of the Philippines v. Hernandez , 99 Phil. Rep 515 (1956), was a case decided by the Philippine

Supreme Court which held that the crime of rebellion under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines is

charged as a single offense, and that it cannot be made into a complex crime. While it was decided on an

almost divided opinion, it nevertheless became a stable doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence.

Contents

  [hide] 

1 Facts

2 Arguments

3 Decision

4 Legacy

5 References

[edit]Facts

It was the height of the Government action against communists and the Hukbalahap guerillas. President Elpidio

Quirino, through his Defense Secretary (and later, President) Ramon Magsaysay intensified the campaign

against them, and the crackdown was on against communist organizations. Due to such government action,

several communist leaders like Luis Taruc and the Lava brothers were soon in government custody.

On January 20, 1951, the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO) headquarters was raided. Writer (and

future National Artist for Literature) Amado V. Hernandez, himself a labor leader, was arrested on January 26

for various rebellious activities with the CLO. Upon his arrest, he was charged in the criminal information of

“Rebellion with Murder, Arson and Robbery”. Five years after his arrest, Hernandez asked for bail with the court

where his case was pending, but was denied on the basis of the nature of the offense (if the crime was

complexed, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed). Thus, he filed a petition to the Supreme

Court.

[edit]Arguments

The government, headed by Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, argued that the gravity of the crime committed

required the denial of the bail. Moreover, the complex crime charged by the government against Hernandez

has been successfully imposed with other arrested communist leaders and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

[edit]Decision

The Supreme Court, through then Associate Justice Roberto Concepcion, ruled that rebellion cannot be

complexed with other crimes, such as murder and arson. Rebellion in itself would include and absorb the said

crimes, thus granting the accused his right to bail. Murder and arson are crimes inherent and concomitant when

rebellion is taking place. Rebellion in the Revised Penal Code constitutes one single crime and that there is no

reason to complex it with other crimes. As basis, the Court cited several cases convicting the defendants of

simple rebellion although they killed several persons.

Thus, the petition for bail was granted. On May 30, 1964, the Supreme Court acquitted Hernandez (People v.

Hernandez (1964)).

[edit]Legacy

The Court was divided upon the decision, having a vote of 6-4 (one justice died a month before its

promulgation). But it was later on accepted as valuable jurisprudence, starting with the subsequent case of

People of the Philippines v. Geronimo (100 Phil. Reports 90). The case is now a standard case study in

Philippine law schools.

According to Justice J.B.L. Reyes, during the deliberations of the Hernandez case, Justice Sabino Padilla (who

is the brother of the Solicitor General,Ambrosio Padilla) openly accused Chief Justice Ricardo Paras for being

prejudiced against the Government and asking biased questions during the oral argument. Riled, Paras

rebutted, and a heated exchange soon ensued between the Chief Justice and Padilla, which would have

worsened had not they restrained themselves.

As of 1990, the Philippine Supreme Court again revisited the doctrine in Hernandez, where Juan Ponce

Enrile was similarly charged with the same offense as Hernandez. The Supreme Court upheld anew the

Hernandez decision (Enrile v. Salazar (1990)), maintaining that it is still good law and applicable.

People vs Geronimo

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-8936. October 23, 1956.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FEDERICO GERONIMO alias Cmdr. OSCAR, ET AL., Defendants, FEDERICO GERONIMO alias Cmdr. OSCAR, Defendant-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N

REYES, J. B. L., J.:

In an information filed on June 24, 1954 by the provincial Fiscal in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Appellant Federico Geronimo, together with Mariano P. Balgos alias Bakal alias Tony, alias Tony Collante alias Taoic, alias Mang Pacio, alias Bonny Abundio Romagosa alias David, Jesus Polita alias Rex, Jesus Lava alias Jessie alias NMT, alias Balbas, alias Noli, alias Noli Metangere, alias NKVD, Juan Ocompo alias Cmdr. Bundalian, alias Tagle, Rosendo Manuel alias Cmdr. Sendong, alias Ruiz, Ernesto Herrero alias Cmdr. Ed, alias Rene, alias Eddy, Santiago Rotas alias Cmdr. Jessie, Fernando Principe alias Cmdr. Manding, Alfredo Saguni alias Godo, alias Terry, alias Terpy, Andres Diapera alias Maclang, alias Berto, alias Teny, Lorenzo Saniel alias Wenny, Silvestre Sisno alias Tomo, alias Albert, Teodoro Primavera alias Nestor, Lorenzo Roxas alias Argos, Vivencio Pineda alias Marquez, Pedro Anino alias Fernandez, Mauro Llorera alias Justo, Richard Doe alias Cmdr. Danny and John Doe alias Cmdr. Berion, alias Mayo, alias Cmdr. Paulito and many others, were charged with the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping committed as follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

x x x x x x x x x

“That on or about May 28, 1946 and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto continuously up to the present time in the province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and in other municipalities, cities and provinces and other parts of the country where they have chosen to carry out their rebellious activities, the above-named accused being then ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB) or otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) the latter being

the armed force of said Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) having come to an agreement and decide to commit the crime of Rebellion, and therefore, conspiring together and confederating among themselves with all of the thirty-one accused in criminal case Nos. 14071, 14282, 14315, 14270, 15344 and with all the accused in criminal case No. 19166 of the Court of First Instance of Manila with the other members, officers and/or affiliates of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan and with many others whose identities and whereabouts are still unknown, acting in accordance with their conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, and mutually helping one another, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, help, support, promote, maintain, direct and/or command the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) or the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB), to rise publicly and take arms against the government of the Republic of the Philippines, or otherwise participate in such public armed uprisings for the purpose of removing the territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to the government and laws thereof as in fact the said ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB) or the Hukbalahaps’ (HUKS) pursuant to such conspiracy, have risen publicly and taken arms against the Government of the Republic of the Philippines to attain said purpose, by then and there making armed raids, sorties, and ambuscades, attacks against the Philippine Constabulary, the civilian guards, the Police and the Army Patrols and other detachments as well as upon innocent civilians, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of Rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, have then and there committed wanton acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, kidnapping and planned destructions of private and public property and plotted the liquidation of government officials, to create and spread disorder, terror, confusion, chaos and fear so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, among which are as follows, to wit: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

‘1. That on or about April 28, 1949 at Kilometer 62 at Barrio Salubsob, municipality of Nueva Ecija, an undetermined number of HUKS led by Commanders Viernes, Marzan, Lupon and Mulong did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously ambush, assault, attack and fired upon the party of Mrs. Aurora A. Quezon and her PC escort whom they considered as their enemies resulting in the killing of Mrs. Aurora A. Quezon, Baby Quezon, Mayor Bernardo of Quezon City, Major P. San Agustin, Lieutenant Lasam, Philip Buencamino III, and several soldiers and the wounding of General Jalandoni and Captain Manalang.

‘2. That on or about August 26, 1950 in Santa Cruz, Laguna, about one hundred armed HUKS with intent to gain and for the purpose of securing supplies and other materials for the support and meintenance of the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMBS) did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and forcibly bringing the Cashier of the Provincial Treasury, Mr. Vicente Reventar from his house to the Provincial Capitol and at the point of guns forced him to open the Treasury Vault and took therefrom Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000) consisting of various denominations and including Fifty, One hundred and Five-Hundred Peso Bills and also took away with them type- writers and other Office supplies which they found in the Provincial Capitol Building, burning and looting private buildings in towns.

‘3. That on or about the years 1951 to 1952 in the municipality of Pasacao, Camarines Sur, Philippines, a group of Armed Huks under Commander Rustum raided the house of one Nemesio Palo, a police sergeant of Libmanan, Camarines Sur and as a result, said HUKS were able to capture said Nemesio Palo and once captured, with evident premeditation, treachery and intent to kill, stab, shot and cut the neck of said Nemesio Palo thereby causing the instantaneous death of Nemesio Palo.

‘4. That on or about January 31, 1953, at barrio of Santa Rita, Del Gallego, Camarines Sur a group of HMBS with Federico Geronimo alias Commander Oscar ambushed and fired upon an Army Patrol headed by Cpl. Bayrante, resulting in seriously wounding of Pfc. Paneracio Torrado and Eusebio Gruta a civilian.

‘5. That on or about February 1954 at barrio Cotmo, San Fernando, Camarines Sur, a group of four HMBS led by accused Commander Oscar with evident premeditation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously killed one Policarpio Tipay a barrio lieutenant.’“ (Appellee’s brief, pp. 1-8)

Accused Federico Geronimo first entered a plea of not guilty to the information. When the case was called for trial on October 12, 1954, however, he asked the permission of the court to substitute his original plea with one of guilty, and was allowed to change his plea. On the basis of the plea of guilty, the fiscal recommended that the penalty of life imprisonment be imposed upon the accused, his voluntary plea of guilty being considered as a mitigating circumstance. Geronimo’s counsel, on the other hand, argued that the penalty imposable upon the accused was only prision mayor, for the reason that in his opinion, there is no such complex crime as rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping, because the crimes of murders robberies, and kidnapping being the natural consequences of the crime of rebellion, the crime charged against the accused should be considered only as simple rebellion. On October 18, 1954, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand giving him the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of P10,000, to indemnify the heirs of the various persons killed, as listed in the information, in the sum of P6,000 each, and to pay the proportionate costs of the proceedings. From this judgment, accused Federico Geronimo appealed, raising the sole question of whether the crime committed by him is the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, or simple rebellion.

After mature consideration, a majority of seven justices 1 of this Court are of the opinion that the issue posed by Appellant has been already decided in the recent resolution of this Court in the case of People vs. Hernandez et al., (99 Phil., 529; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary21 Lawyers Journal, No. 7 [July 31, 1956], p. 316). As in treason, where both intent and overt act are necessary, the crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of both the armed uprising for the purposes expressed in article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, and the overt acts of violence described in the first paragraph of article 135. That both purpose and overt acts are essential components of one crime, and that without either of them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist, is shown by the absence of any penalty attached to article 134. 2 It follows, therefore that any or all of the acts described in article 135, when committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends described in article 134, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion, and cannot be regarded or penalized as distinct crimes in themselves. In law they are part and parcel of the rebellion itself, and cannot be considered as giving rise to a separate crime that, under article 48 of the Code, would constitute a complex one with that of rebellion.

The terms employed in the first paragraph of article 135 of the Revised Penal Code to describe the component of violence in the crime of rebellion are broad and general. The Spanish text (which is the one controlling, People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil. 665) states that the acts of the rebels may consists of —

“Sosteniendo combate 3 con la fuerza leal, causando estragos en las propiedades, ejerciendo violencia grave, exigiendo contribuciones, o distroyendo caudales publicos de su inversion legitima.”

If all the overt acts charged in the information against herein Appellant were committed for political ends or in furtherance of the rebellion, they come within the preceding description. Thus, count 4 (ambushing and firing upon army patrol) constitutes engaging in combat with the loyal troops; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarycount 2 (taking funds and equipment from the Provincial Treasury of Laguna) is diverting public funds from their ligitimate purpose; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarywhile the killings outlined in the other counts (1, 3 and 5) are instances of committing serious violence.

The majority of the Court found no cogent reason for limiting “commission of serious violence” in article 135 to hostilities against the Government’s armed forces exclusively; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryfor in that case, the former

expression would be redundant and mere duplication of “engaging in combat” with loyal troops, also described in the same article. If the infliction of “serious violence” was separately expressed in the law, it is because the violence referred to is that inflicted upon civilians. Again, to restrict “serious violence” to acts short of homicide, is to unwarrantedly assume that the broad term “violencia grave” is used in the limited sense of “lesiones graves”, which in our Penal Code has a specialized signification. In truth, if physical injuries constitute grave violence, so would killing necessarily be, if not more. Additionally, it may be observed that rebellion is by nature a crime of masses or multitudes, involving crowd action, that cannot be confined a priori within predetermined bounds. (People vs. Hernandez, supra; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryPeople vs. Almazan, C. A., 31 Off. Gaz. 1932). Hence the broad terms employed by the statute.

The prosecution insists that the “more serious” crime of murder cannot be justifiably regarded as absorbed by the lesser crime of rebellion. In the first place, it is not demonstrated that the killing of an individual is intrinsically less serious or less dangerous to society than the violent subversion of established government, which emperils the lives of many citizens, at least during the period of the struggle for superiority between rebels and loyalists. If, on the other hand, murder is punished by reclusion perpetua to death, and rebellion only by prision mayor, this leniency is due to the political purpose that impels every rebellious act. As noted by Groizard (“Codigo Penal de 1870”, Vol. 3, p. 239) —

“El analisis de toda clase de delitos politicos ofrece para el jurisconsulto un resultado precioso, pues pone de relieve las diferencias cardinales que existen entre esta clase de hechos y los delitos comunes; chan

roblesvirtualawlibraryentre los reos de aquellos crimenes y los reos de estos otros. Para los delitos comunes, la sociedad tiene una constante y energica reprobacion que no atenua ni el trascurso de tiempo ni el cambio de las ideas. Para los delitos politicos, no. Quien se atrevera si de honrado se precia, a hacer alarde de la amistad de un hombre condenado por robo o por asesinato? Y quien no ha tendido la mano cariñosa sin perder nada de respetabilidad, a algun reo de un delito politico en la serie continuada de revoluciones y contrarevoluciones que constituyen desgraciadamente los ultimos periodos de nuestra historia? La consumacion del delito y el exito de la rebelion, ya lo hemos dicho, para el reo politico, es mas que la impunidad, es el triunfo, es el poder, es el Gobierno, es casi la gloria. Pero no sucede lo mismo tratandose de delitos comunes: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary la consumacion del delito ni apaga el remordimiento, ni aleja del criminal el peligro de la pena, ni mejora en nada su condicion respecto de la justicia. Hay, pues, entre el delito comun y el delito politico, entre las personas responsables de unos y otros diferencias sustanciales, y el mayor error que en el estado actual de los estudios juridicos puede cometer el legislador es no apreciar eses diferencias, sobre todo en la aplicacion de las penas.”

And our history of three centuries of uninterrupted rebellions against sovereign Spain, until she was finally driven from our shores, suffices to explain why the penalty against rebellion, which stood at reclusion temporal maximum to death in the Spanish Penal Code of 1870, was reduced only prision mayor in our revised Penal Code of 1932.

In addition, the government counsel’s theory that an act punished by more serious penalty cannot be absorbed by an act for which a lesser penalty is provided, is not correct. The theory is emphatically refuted by the treatment accorded by the Penal Code to the crime of forcible abduction, for which the law imposes only reclusion temporal (article 342), notwithstanding that such crime necessarily involves illegal detention of the abducted woman for which article 267 of the same Penal Code fixes the penalty of reclusion temporal, in its maximum period, to death. The same situation obtains in the crime of slavery defined in article 272, whereby the kidnapping of a human being for the purpose of enslaving him is punished with prision mayor and a fine of not more than P10,000.00, when kidnapping itself is penalized by article 267 with a much higher penalty.

And we have already pointed out in the Hernandez resolution that to admit the complexing of the crime of rebellion with the felonies committed in furtherance thereof, would lead to these undesirable results:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (1) to make the punishment for rebellion heavier than that of treason, since it has been repeatedly held that the latter admits no complexing with the overt acts committed in furtherance of the treasonous intent, and, in addition, requires two witnesses to every overt act which is not true in the case of rebellion; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary(2) to nullify the policy expressed in article 135 (R.P.C.) of imposing lesser penalty upon the rebel followers as compared to their leaders, because under the complexing theory every rebel, leader or follower, must suffer the heavier penalty in its maximum degree; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand (3) to violate the fundamental rule of criminal law that all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary “in dubiis reus est absolvendus”; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary“nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege.”

Of course, not every act of violence is to be deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely because it happens to be committed simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion. If the killing, robbing, etc. were done for private purposes or profit, without any political motivation, the crime would be separately punishable and would not be absorbed by the rebellion. But ever then, the individual misdeed could not be taken with the rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts and intent would be unrelated to each other; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand the individual crime would not be a means necessary for committing the rebellion as it would not be done in preparation or in furtherance of the latter. This appears with utmost clarity in the case where an individual rebel should commit rape; chan

roblesvirtualawlibrarycertainly the latter felony could not be said to have been done in furtherance of the rebellion or facilitated its commission in any way. The ravisher would then be liable for two separate crimes, rebellion and rape, and the two could not be merged into a juridical whole.

It is argued that the suppression in the present Penal Code of article 244 of the old one (article 259 of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870) indicates the intention of the Legislature to revive the possibility of the crime of rebellion being complexed with the individual felonies committed in the course thereof, because the suppressed article prohibited such complexing. The text of the suppressed provision is as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“ART. 244. Los delitos particulares cometidos en una rebelion o sedicion, o con motivo de ellas, seran castigados respectivamente segun las disposiciones de este codigo.

Cuando no puedan descubrirse sus autores, seran penados como tales los jefes principales de la rebelion o sedicion.”

The first paragraph is to the effect that the “delitos particulares” (meaning felonies committed for private non-political ends, as held by the commentators Cuello Calon and Viada, since the Penal Code does not classify crimes into “general” and “particular”) are to be dealt with separately from the rebellion, punishment for each felony to be visited upon the perpetrators thereof. This paragraph has no bearing on the question of complex crimes, but is a mere consequence of the fact that the delicts committed for private ends bear no relation to the political crime of rebellion (other than a coincidence of time) and therefore must be separately dealt with. This is so obvious that, as Groizard pointed out (Vol. 3, p. 650), such action (their punishment as a private misdeed) would be taken by the courts even if this first paragraph of article 244 had not been written.

Far more significant, in the opinion of the majority, is that our Revised Penal Code of 1932 did not revive the rule contained in the second paragraph of article 244 of the old Penal Code (Article 259 of the Spanish), whereby the rebel leaders were made criminally responsible for the individual felonies committed during the rebellion or on occasion thereof, in case the real perpetrators could not be found. In effect that paragraph established a command responsibility; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand in suppressing it, the Legislature plainly revealed a policy of rejecting any such command responsibility. It was the legislative intent,

therefore, that the rebel leaders (and with greater reason, the mere followers) should be held accountable solely for the rebellion, and not for the individual crimes (delitos particulares) committed during the same for private ends, unless their actual participation therein was duly established. In other words, the suppression of article 244 of the old Penal Code virtually negates the contention that the rebellion and the individual misdeeds committed during the same should legally constitute one complex whole. Whether or not such policy should be maintained is not for the courts, but for the Legislature, to say.

But while a majority of seven justices 4 are agreed that if the overt acts detailed in the information against the Appellant had been duly proved to have been committed “as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof”, then the accused could only be convicted of simple rebellion, the opinions differ as to whether his plea of guilty renders the accused amenable to punishment not only for rebellion but also for murder or other crimes.

Six justices 5 believe that conceding the absence of a complex crime, still, by his plea of guilty the accused-Appellant has admitted all the acts described in the five separate counts of the information; chan

roblesvirtualawlibraryand that if any of such counts constituted an independent crime committed within the jurisdiction of the lower court as seems to be the case under the facts alleged in Count No. 5 (the killing of Policarpio Tibay), then the avertment in the information that it was perpetrated in furtherance of the rebellion, being a mere conclusion, cannot be a bar toAppellant’s conviction and punishment for said offense, he having failed, at the arraignment, to object to the information on the ground of multiplicity of crimes charged. Hence, the acts charged in Counts 1 to 4 cannot be taken into consideration in this case, either because they were committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court below (Count 1), or because the allegations do not charge the Appellant’s participation (Count 3), or else the acts charged are essentially acts of rebellion, with out private motives (Counts 2 and 4).

Five justices, 6 on the other hand, hold that by his plea of guilty, the accused avowed having committed the overt acts charged in all five counts; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarybut that he only admitted committing them in fact “as a necessary means”, “in connection and in furtherance of the rebellion”, as expressly alleged by the prosecution. This is not only because the information expressly alleged the necessary connection between the overt acts and the political ends pursued by the accused, but in addition, it failed to charge that the Appellant was impelled by private motives. Wherefore, such overt acts must be taken as essential ingredients of the single crime of rebellion, and the accused pleaded guilty to this crime alone. Hence, there being no complex crime, the Appellant can only be sentenced for the lone crime of rebellion. Even more, the minority contends that under the very theory of the majority, the circumstances surrounding the plea are such as to at least cast doubt on whether the accused clearly understood that he was pleading guilty to two different crimes or to only one; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryso that in fairness and justice, the case should be sent back for a rehearing by the Court of origin, to ascertain whether or not the accused fully realized the import of his plea (U.S. vs. Patala, 2 Phil., 752; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryU.S. vs. Agcaoili, 31 Phil., 91; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryU.S. vs. Jamad, 37 Phil., 305).

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is modified and the accused convicted for the simple (non-complex) crime of rebellion under article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and also for the crime of murder; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand considering the mitigating effect of his plea of guilty, the accused-Appellant Federico Geronimo is hereby sentenced to suffer 8 years of prision mayor and to pay a fine of P10,000, (without subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to article 38 of the Penal Code) for the rebellion; chan

roblesvirtualawlibraryand, as above explained, for the murder, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 18 years of reclusion temporal; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryto indemnify the heirs of Policarpio Tibay in the sum of P6,000; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand to pay the costs. SO ORDERED.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Felix, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

MONTEMAYOR, J., concurring and dissenting: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

After stating the facts and the issues in this case, the learned majority opinion declares that the majority of seven Justices of the Court are of the opinion that the issue posed by theAppellants has been already decided in the recent resolution of this Court in the case of People vs. Hernandez, et al., (99 Phil., 529). Had the considerations ended there and the case was decided of the basis of said Hernandez resolution, which the majority of Justices apparently ratified, I would have contended myself with merely citing and making as part of my concurrence and dissent, my dissenting opinion in that same case of Hernandez, supra. However, the majority not only ratifies and emphasizes the considerations and doctrine laid down in the Hernandez case, but makes further considerations, additional and new, and even quote authorities, for which reason, I again find myself in a position where I am constrained not only to cite my dissenting opinion in the Hernandez case, but also make further observations not only to discuss the new point raised, but also in an endeavor to clarify and present a clear picture of our present law on rebellion and its origin.

For purposes of ready reference, I deem it convenient to reproduce articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code, reading as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“ART. 134. Rebellion or insurrection. — How committed. — The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by being publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or of depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.

“ART. 135. Penalty for rebellion or insurrection. — Any person who promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion or insurrection, or who, while holding any public office or employment takes part therein, engaging in war against the forces of the Government, destroying property or committing serious violence, exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 20,000 pesos.

“Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.

“When the rebellion or insurrection shall be under the command of unknown leaders, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the rebels shall be deemed the leader of such rebellion.”

I am also reproducing the Spanish text of the above Article 135 because as well stated in the majority opinion on the strength of the case People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil., 665, the Spanish text of the Rev. P. Code was the one approved by the Legislature and so is controlling.

“ART. 135. Pena para la rebelion o insurreccion. — Sera castigado con prision mayor y multa que no exceda de 20,000 pesos el promovedor, sostenedor o jefe de la rebelion o insurreccion o el que hubiere tomado parte en ella siendo funcionario o empleado publico, sosteniendo combate contra la fuerza leal, causando estragos en las propiedades, ejerciendo violencia grave, exigiendo contribuciones, o distrayendo caudales publicos de su inversion legitima.

“Los meros afiliados o ejecutores de la rebelion seran castigados con prision mayor en su grado minimo.

“Cuando los jefes de una rebelion o insurreccion fueran desconocidos, se reputaran por tales los que de hecho hubieren dirigido a los demas, llevado la voz por ellos, firmado recibos y otros escritos expedidos a su nombre o ejercitado otros actos semejantes en representacion de los rebeldes.”

The majority says, and I quote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“As in treason, where both intent and overt acts are necessary, the crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of both the armed uprising for the purposes expressed in article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, and the overt acts of violence described in the first paragraph of article 135. That both purpose and overt acts are essential components of one crime, and that without either of them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist, is shown by the absence of any penalty attached to article 134.”

I cannot agree wholly to the correctness of the above proposition. It is true that in treason as well as in rebellion both intent and overt acts are necessary, excluding of course conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion where overt acts are not necessary (article 136), but what I consider the flaw in the thesis is the claim that in rebellion, the armed uprising is the intent and the overt acts are those act of violence described in the first paragraph of article 135, namely, engaging the Government forces in combat, causing damage to property, committing serious violence, etc. To me, the intent in rebellion is the purpose, the intention and the objective of the rebels to remove from the allegiance of the government or its laws the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or any armed forces, etc., and the overt act or acts are the rising publicly and taking arms against said Government. Article 134 contains and includes both elements, intent and overt acts to constitute a complete crime. Said article 134, without making any reference to any other article, described the manner rebellion is committed, not partially but fully and completely, without any qualification whatsoever, and said description is complete in order to render persons included therein as having consummated the crime of rebellion. Article 134 in part reads.

“ART. 134. Rebellion or insurrection. — How committed. — The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government” etc.

It is necessary to consider the origin and history of the provisions of articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code as I have previously reproduced. This, in order to have a clearer understanding of the meaning of both articles and the spirit and intention behind them. Our present Revised Penal Code is a revision of our Penal Code promulgated in the Philippines on July 14, 1887 (later referred to as the Penal Code of 1887), based upon and taken almost bodily from the Spanish Penal Code of 1870 (later referred to as the Penal Code of 1870). Our Penal Code of 1887 adopted in great measure the provisions of the Penal Code of 1870. However, the provisions of our Penal Code of 1887 on rebellion, were superseded and replaced by the provisions of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, which governed rebellion up to 1932 when the Revised Penal Code went into effect. In dealing with the crime of rebellion, the Committee on Revision abandoned the provisions of Act No. 292 and went back to and adopted those of the Penal Code of 1870, although it included the more benign and lighter penalties imposed in Act No. 292. The provisions of the Penal Code of 1870 on rebellion are rather complicated for the reason that in defining and penalizing acts of rebellion, they make reference to the provisions regarding crimes against the form of government. For this reason, to have an over all picture of the law on rebellion, we have to make reference to and cite, even reproduce, portions of the codal provision on crimes against the form of government. For the sake of brevity and so as not to unduly lengthen this opinion, I shall confine myself to the reproduction of the pertinent provisions of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870, for being the source of our Penal Code of 1887, besides the likelihood if not a fact that since as already stated, the provisions of our Penal Code of 1887 on rebellion were not in force at the time of the revision, the

Committee revising said Penal Code of 1887, must have considered mainly the provisions of the Penal Code of 1870.

Art. 184 of the Sp. P. Code of 1870 reads, thus: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Delitos contra la forma de Gobierno

“ART. 184. Los que se alzaren publicamente en armas y en abierta hostilidad para perperar cualquiera de los delitos previstos en el articulo 181, seran castigados con las penas siguientes: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“1.° Los que hubieren promovido el alzamiento o lo sostuvieren o lo dirigieren o aparecieren como sus principales autores, con la pena de reclusion temporal en su grado maximo a muerte.

“2.° Los que ejercieren un mando subalterno, con la de reclusion temporal a muerte, si fueren personas constituidas en Autoridad civil o eclesiastica, o si hubiere habido combate entre la fuerza de su mando y la fuerza publica fiel al Gobierno, o aqu;lla hubiere causado estragos en las propiedades de los particulares, de los pueblos o del Estado, cortado las lineas telegraficas o las ferreas, ejercido violencias graves contra las personas, exigido contribuciones o distraido los candales publicos de su legitima inversion.

“Fuera de estos casos, se impondra al culpable la pena de reclusion temporal.

“3.° Los meros ejecutores del alzamiento con la pena de prision mayor en su grado medio a reclusion temporal en su grado medio a reclusion temporal en su grado minimo, en los casos previstos en el parrafo primero del numero anterior, y con la de prision mayor en toda su extension, en los comprendidos en el parrafo segundo del propio numero.”

Art. 243 of the same code reads as follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Delitos contra el Orden Publico

“ART. 243. Son resos de rebelion los que se alzaren publicamente y en abierta hostilidad contra el Gobierno para cualquiera de los objetos siguientes: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“1.° Destronar al Rey, deponer el Regente o Regencia del Reino, o privarles de su libertad personal u, obligarles a ejecutar un acto contrario a su voluntad.

“2.° Impedir la celebracion de las elecciones para Diputados a Cortes o Senadores en todo el Reino, o la reunion legitima de las mismas.

“3.° Disolver las Cortes o impedir la deliberacion de alguno de los Cuerpos Colegisladores o arrancarles alguna resolucion.

“4.° Ejecutar cualquiera delos delitos previstos en el art. 165.

“5.° Sustraer el Reino o parte de el o algun cuerpo de tropa de tierra o de mar, o cualquiera otra clase de fuersa armada, de la obediencia al supremo Gobierno.

“6.° Usar y ejercer por si o despojar a los Ministros de la Corona de sus facultades constitucionales, o impedirles o coartarles su libre ejercicio.

ARTS. 244, 245 and 246 of the same code read as follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“ART. 244. — Los que induciendo y determinando a los rebeldes, hubieron promovido o sostuvieren la rebellion, y los candillos principales de esta, seran castigados con la pena de reclusion temporal en su grado maximo a muerte.

“ART. 245. — Los ejerciaren un mando subalterno en la rebelion incurriran en la pena de reclusion temporal a muerte, si se encontraren en alguno de los casos previstos en el parrafo primero del numero 2.° del articulo 184; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryy con la de reclusion temporal si no se encontraren incluidos en ninguno de ellos.

“ART. 246. — Los meros ejecutores de la rebelion seran castigados con la pena de prision mayor en su grado medio a reclusion temporal en su grado minimo, en los casos previstos en el parrafo primero del numero 2.° del articulo 184; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryy con la de prision mayor en toda su extension no estando en el mismo comprendidos.

It will be observed that in drafting Art. 134 of our Revised Penal Code, the Committee on Revision (later referred to as Code Committee) adopted, with the exclusion of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of Art. 243 which refer to the King and the legislative bodies of the Kingdom of Spain, the provisions of said art. 243 of the Penal Code of 1870, particularly, the first part thereof and also No. 5, even their phraseology —

“son reos de rebelion los que se alzaren publicamente y en abierta hostilidad contra el Gobierno” cralaw and “sustraer el Reino o parte de el o algun cuerpo de tropa de tierra o de mar, o cualquiera otra clase de fuerza armada, de la obediencia al supremo Gobierno”, (the crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof of any body of land, naval or other armed forces), (our article 134).

Now, as regards the penalty for rebellion, it will be seen that under article 244 (Penal Code of 1870), persons who by inciting and encouraging the rebels shall have brought about or shall sustain a rebellion as well as the principal leaders of such rebellion as are penalized with reclusion temporal in its maximum degree of death. Under article 245, same code, those holding a subordinate command in the rebellion are penalized with reclusion temporal to death, if they are included in any of the cases provided for in paragraph 1 of No. 2 of article 184, which for purposes of ready reference we again reproduce, thus: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“ cralaw si fueren personas constituidas en Autoridad civil o eclesiastica, o si hubiere habido combate entre la fuerza de su mando y la fuerza publica fiel al Gobierno, o aguella hubiere causado estragos en las propiedades de los particulares, de los pueblos o del Estado, cortado las lineas telegraficas o las vias ferreas, ejercido violencias graves contra las personas, exigido contribuciones o distraidos los caudales publicos de su legitima inversion.”;

or if not so included, the penalty is reclusion temporal.

Under article 246, those persons merely participating in the rebellion are penalized with prision mayor in its medium degree to reclusion temporal in its minimum degree, in the cases provided for in paragraph 1 of No. 2 of article 184 as above reproduced, but those not so included, will suffer the penalty only of prision mayor.

As I have stated in my dissenting opinion in the Hernandez case, supra, one of the purposes of the revision of our old Penal Code of 1887 was simplification and elimination of provisions considered unnecessary, in proof of which, while the old Penal Code contained 611 articles, the Revised Penal Code has but 367 articles. There is every reason to believe that the code Committee in its endeavor at simplification did not deem it necessary to provide a special penalty for those who promote, maintain, or head a rebellion as does article 244, and it made a merger or combination of articles 244 and 245, so as to impose the same penalty on (1) the promoters and leaders of the rebellion and (2) on those who are either holding any public office or employment (instituida en autoridad civil o eclesiastica) or if not so holding any public office, that their forces have engaged the forces of the Government in combat, or have caused damage to Government or private property, or committed serious violence, etc. (“sosteniendo combate contra la fuerza leal, causendo estragos en las propeidades, ejerciendo violencia

grave, exigiendo, contribuciones, o distrayendo caudales publicos de su enversion legitima”). (Spanish text of article 135 of our revised Penal Code). I cannot believe that the Code Committee in making the merger abandoned the idea of punishing the promotion, maintenance, and leadership of a rebellion in itself, and that to penalize the same, it must be connected and coupled with the commission of any or all of the acts above mentioned, which under the Penal Code of 1870, refers only to those holding a subordinate command in the rebellion. I am convinced that the whole aim and intention of the Code Committee was merely to equalize the penalty for both sets of rebels — those leaders, promoters, and maintainers of the rebellion on the one hand, and those holding a subordinate command under the qualification stated in paragraph 1 of article 135, but that the former, because of their more serious and heavier criminal responsibility their promotions, maintenance, and leadership of the rebellion were sufficiently deserving of the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not, to exceed P20,000; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarybut for those rebels with lesser responsibility, to deserve the same penalty, they must either be holding any public office or employment, or if not, that their forces have engaged Government troops in combat, or have caused damage to property, etc. Stated differently, the clause “sosteniendo combate contra la fuerza leal, causando estragos en las propeidades, ejerciendo violencia grave,” etc., refers to and qualifies not the leaders, promoters, and maintainers of the rebellion, but only those rebels of lesser responsibility. In other words for the leaders, promoters and maintainers of the rebellion, the rebellion is consummated and subject to punishment under article 134. It may be that the Code Committee that drafted article 135 in its endeavors to achieve a phraseology as simple and concise as possible, did not convey its purpose and intent any too plainly and clearly, but I venture to assert that that was what it meant. In case of doubt as to the real meaning of article 135, recourse should be had to its source, namely, articles 244 and 245 in relation with No. 2 paragraph 1 of article 184 of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870, for which reason I deemed it necessary to reproduce as I did said articles.

For the foregoing reasons, I cannot agree with the majority that the commission of the acts mentioned in Article 134 alone, even by the leaders and promoters of the rebellion, carry no penal sanction. Besides the considerations or conclusions already adduced against said holding and theory of the majority, there are other reasons. For instance, the second paragraph of article 135 provides that: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.”

Under this provision, one merely participating in a rebellion, that is rising publicly and taking arms against the government under article 134, is penalized with prision mayor in its minimum period. But under the theory of the majority, the leaders of the rebellion who perform the same acts defined in the same article 134 may not be punished, unless they or their forces engage Government troops or cause damage to property, commit serious violence, etc. That would seem to be unjust and illogical.

Again, articles 136 and 138 of the Revised Penal Code penalize conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion and inciting to rebellion. I reproduce said two articles: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“ART. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection. — The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished, respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not exceed P5,000, and by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding P2,000.”

“ART. 138. — Inciting to rebellion or insurrection. — The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking arms or being in open hostility against the Government, shall incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified in article 134 of this Code, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending to the same end.”

Under article 136, if two or more persons merely conspire and come to an agreement to commit rebellion or insurrection, which is defined in article 134, without actually committing it or performing the acts mentioned in said article 134, they are already guilty and are punished with prision correcional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding P5,000; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand if the same two or more persons just propose to some other person or persons the commission of rebellion under article 134, they are punished with prision correccional in its medium period and a fine of not exceeding P2,000. In fine, persons merely agreeing and deciding among themselves to rise publicly and take arms against the Government for the purpose mentioned in article 134, without actually rising publicly and taking arms against the Government, or if they merely propose the commission of said acts to other persons without actually performing those overt acts under article 134, they are already subject to punishment. But under the theory of the majority, if those same persons, not content with merely conspiring and agreeing to commit the acts of rebellion or proposing its commission to others, actually go out and actually carry out their conspiracy and agreement, and rise publicly and take arms against the Government, under article 134 there is no penalty. That seems to me rather unreasonable and hard to understand.

Then, under article 138 of the Revised Penal Code, persons who, without taking arms or being in open hostility against the Government under article 134, merely incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified in said article, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, etc., they are punished with prision mayor in its minimum period. But according to the interpretation by the majority of articles 134 and 135, if those same persons, not content with merely making speeches, issuing proclamations, etc., intended to incite others to commit the acts specified in article 134, actually commit those acts themselves, they incur no penalty. I confess I fail to follow the reasoning of the majority on the point.

“Rebellion or insurrection. — How committed. — The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government”. (Article 134)

It is true that article 134 of our Revised Penal Code itself does not impose any penal sanction; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythe reason is that it is a mere definition, just as article 243 of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870 from which it was taken, merely defines and does not penalize the acts therein enumerated. The fact that the article defining a crime or describing how it is committed does not itself impose the penalty does not necessarily mean that the act or acts so defined do not constitute a crime; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryotherwise, all the definition and all the detailed description of the commission of said crime would become empty, meaningless and useless. The penalty for rebellion is found in the following article of 135, just as it is found in articles 244, 245 and 246 of the Penal Code of 1870.

I believe that when a group of dissidents or Hukbalahaps armed and determined to overthrow the Government raid, say, an isolated town, scare away the two or three policemen on guard at the presidencia, take possession of the building even for a few hours, raise the rebel flag, call and herd the residents before the presidencia, and make speeches proclaiming the regime of the dessidents and advising the gathering to transfer their allegiance and loyalty from the constituted Government to the rebels and stop paying taxes to said government and instead contribute the funds to the Huks, without firing a single shot or committing any of the acts enumerated in article 135, the crime of rebellion is complete and consummated and is subject to penalty. In my modest research for authorities on the subject of rebellion, I came across the case of People of the Philippines vs. Benito Cube of the Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 1069-R, decided by that court on November 24, 1948. There it was held that: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“ cralaw The mere fact that Appellant knowingly identified himself with an organization that was openly fighting to overthrow the Government was enough to make him guilty of the crime of rebellion. Under our laws it is not necessary that one has engaged the Government in a clash of arms to commit the

crime of rebellion. It is not even necessary that there be a clash of arms between the rebels and the Government. (U. S. vs. Sadian, 3 Phil., 323.) “

Incidentally, it may be stated that said decision penned by Mr. Justice Gutierrez David was concurred in and signed by Mr. Justice J. B. L. Reyes, the writer of the present majority decision.

The same Court of Appeals, in the case of People vs. Geronimo Perez, G. R. No. 9196-R, involving rebellion cited with favor its previous decision in the case of People vs. Cube, supra, and apparently affirmed and ratified the doctrine laid therein.

Now, as to the nature and application of penalty of rebellion under our Revised Penal Code, I have already endeavored to show that our Art. 135 is based upon and taken from articles 244, 245 and 246 of this Penal Code of 1870, though drastically reducing and mitigating the severity of the penalties found in the Spanish Penal Code, and that the Code Committee in its effort at simplification, made a merger of Arts. 244, 245 and 246. The Code Committee, I feel certain, adopted in principle the scientific and equitable classification of the different persons taking part in the rebellion, scaling punishments according to their position in the rebellion and extent and seriousness of their responsibility. The Code Committee may not have made itself entirely clear, and in case of doubt we should interpret Art. 135 in relation to and considering the philosophy of the Spanish Penal Code provisions on the subject of penalties on rebellion in order to avoid the unreasonable, unequitable, even absurd results I have already pointed out. To achieve this, we may have recourse to the rules of statutory construction.

If a literal interpretation of any part of a statute would operate unjustly or lead to absorb results, or be contrary to the evident meaning of the Act taken as a whole, it should be rejected (In Re: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Allen, 2 Phil. 630, 643); chan roblesvirtualawlibrarycourts permit the elimination of a word and its substitution for others when it is necessary to carry out the legislative intent, where the word is found in the statute due to the inadvertence of the legislature or reviser, or where it is necessary to give the act meaning, effect, or intelligibility, or where it is apparent from the context of the act that the word is surplusage, or where the maintenance of the word, would lead to an absurdity or irrationality, or where the use of the word was a mere inaccuracy, or clearly apparent mishap, or where it is necessary to avoid inconsistencies and to make the provisions of the act harmonize (Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Third Edition, Vol. II, pp. 458 464); chan roblesvirtualawlibraryin the construction of laws, whether constitutional or statutory, the court is not bound to a literal interpretation, where it would lead to an absurdity or a plain violation of the spirit and purpose of the enactment (McCarty v. Goodsman, 167 N. W. 503 cited in L. R. A. Digest, Vol. 7, p. 8892)

I agree with the majority that any or all the acts described in article 135 when committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion become absorbed in said rebellion. The question now is to determine the meaning and scope of said acts. The first act is “sosteniendo combate contra la fuerza leal”, which was erroneously translated into English in article 135 to “engaging in war against the forces of the Government”. In the case of Hernandez, supra, we all accepted and followed that English translation, but later found that it was the Spanish text of the Revised Penal Code that was approved by the Legislature. Naturally, we are bound by the Spanish text.

Incidentally, if I be permitted a little digression, the majority resolution in that case of Hernandez laid much emphasis on the phrase “engaging in war”, and would have included and absorbed in the rebellion the killings of and other outrages to civilians. I quote: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said article 135, 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: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary resort to arms, requisition of property and services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical injuries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and unhappiness that war

carries in its wake — except that, very often, it is worse than war in the international sense, for it involves internal struggle, a fight between brothers, with a bitterness and passion or ruthlessness seldom found in a contest between strangers. Being within the purview of “engaging in war” and ‘committing serious violence’, said resort to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction of life and property, constitutes not two or more offenses, but only one crime — that of rebellion plain and simple.”

Now that we find that what article 135 provides is not engaging in war, but merely engaging in combat, and knowing the vast difference between war and mere combat, there is the possibility that some of the considerations and conclusions made in that majority resolution in the Hernandez case may be affected or enervated. In other words, our law in rebellion contemplates on only armed clashes, skirmishes, ambuscade, and raids, not the whole scale conflict of civil war like that between the Union and Confederate forces in the American Civil War, where the rebels were given the status of belligerency under the laws of war, and consequently, were accorded much leeway and exemption in the destruction of life and property and the violation of personal liberty and security committed during the war.

I agree with the majority opinion in the present case that if the dissidents attack or are attacked by the Government forces, and deaths are caused by the rebels, said combat, provided that the killings are of Government troops or of civilians attached to said troops, like informers, guides, etc. But when innocent civilians far from the scene of combat are murdered either because they failed or refuse to sympathize or cooperate with dissidents, or because they are wealthy landowners, or because they failed to pay the amount of the ransom for those kidnapped by the dissidents, said killings cannot and may not be included and absorbed in the rebellion.

The majority says that the term “violencia grave” (grave violence) enumerated in article 135 is broad and may include the killing of civilians. Again, I disagree. There is a vast difference between violence, even serious violence, and murder or killing. In committing the crime of robbery, the robber may use violence, even serious violence, on his victim; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarybut if the violence results in death, the robber is held guilty not only of robbery but also homicide, or even murder, unless the two crimes can be considered as a complex crime of robbery with homicide. In other words, the violence, even serious violence, supposed to be included in robbery does not extend to, and include killing. The same thing may be said of the crime of coercion where force and violence is contemplated. If the violence used does not result in death, the offender answers only for the crime of coercion, but if the victim dies as a result of the violence to which he was subjected, then said violence contemplated by the law does not extend to or cover the death, and the offender answer for both homicide and coercion. The idea I wish to convey is that the serious violence mentioned in article 135 can by no means be interpreted to include killings.

In the revised or consolidated (refundido) Penal Code of Spain of 1944, I have found the phrase “violencia grave” used in article 144, in connection with article 142, both under the title Delitos Contra el Jefe del Estado. I quote:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

ART. 142. Al quematare al Jefe del Estado se impondra la pena de reclusion mayor a muerte.

“Con igual pena se castigara el delito frustrado y la tentativa del mismo delito.”

“ART. 144. Se castigara con la pena de reclusion mayor a muerte: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“1.° Al que privare al Jefe del Estado de su libertad personal.

“2.° Al que con violencia o intimidacion graves le obligare a ejecutar un acto contra su voluntad.

“3.° Al que le causare lesiones graves no estando comprendidas en el parrafo segundo del art. 142.”

From the above articles we can gather that the Spanish legislators made the necessary and important distinction between the mere use of serious violence (violencia grave) on the Chief of State and causing his death, by treating of the two act separately in articles 142 and 144.

In fine, serious violence is one thing and killing or murder is another, entirely different from each other, one certainly more serious and a graver offense than the other. If serious violence results in death, then said violence changes in aspect and becomes homicide or murder. I therefore conclude that the serious violence mentioned in article 135, which I agree with the majority that it refers to civilians and not to members of the armed forces of the Government, cannot include killings of said civilians. Otherwise, where we to hold that the serious violence (violencia grave) extends to and includes killings and murders, then we would be converting, though unwittingly, every rebellion into an open season for hunting as it were, innocent civilians who have the misfortune of living within raiding distance from the dissident hideouts.

The majority explains and gives reasons for the great difference between murder on the one hand, penalized with reclusion temporal to death, and rebellion on the other, punished with mere prision mayor, due to the political purpose that impels every rebellious act and quotes Groizard, Vol. III, p. 239, who discusses the great difference between the crime of, say, murder or robbery, and the offense of rebellion; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat no one would care to befriend one convicted as an assassin or robber, but on the other hand would gladly, even fondly, shake the hand of one convicted of rebellion, and that when the rebellion succeeds, the rebel not only secures impunity to his rebellious act, but also attains power, even the government itself and the glory. I agree. It is no less true, however, that Groizard must be referring to a rebel with clean hands and a clean conscience, for it is gravely to be doubted whether one would shake the hand of a rebel dripping and stained with the blood of innocent civilians, a hand responsible for the devastation and desolation cause to those very persons and communities which the rebellion pretended to help and liberate from oppression. That is why Groizard in his next paragraph, in advocating for the reduction of the very severe penalty attached to rebellion under the Spanish Penal Code distinguishes between simple rebellion and one in which the common crimes like murder, robbery, etc., and committed. I quote: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“Con esto queremos dar a entender que las penas fulminadas en el texto que comentamos nos parcen ante la razon y la ciencia injustificadas por su dureza. La pena de muerte, tan combatida hoy en todos terrenos, solo puede defenderse, como tipo maximo de represion, para aquellos delitos que revisten en todas sus circumstancias el grado mayor juridico concebible de criminalidad. Ahora mite maximo de la depravacion humana?” (Supplied)

bien; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarypueden ser los meros delitos politicos, aun los delitos de rebelion por graves que sean, no estando unidos con otros delitos comunes, como robos, incendios, asesinatos, etc., etc.; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarypueden ser, decimos, calificados, en abstractos principios de justicia, como el limite maximo de la depravacion humana?” (Emphasis supplied.)

Then the majority makes a reference to our history of long, uninterrupted rebellion against Spain. A rebellion whose purpose is to overthrow a corrupt and tyrannical government, redeem the people from oppression, exploitation and injustice, and free them from a foreign yoke is a movement deserving of sympathy and admiration; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarybut a rebellion aimed at overthrowing not a foreign and monarchical government but its very own, to substitute it not with a democratic and republic form of government for it is already a republic, but to institute in its place a new regime under an entirely new and foreign ideology, godless and absolute, to be subject to the orders and control of a foreign power, such a rebellion assumes an entirely different aspect, and I am afraid that for it there cannot be the sympathy, the admiration and glory that Groizard and we have in mind.

The majority further says that as pointed out in the Hernandez resolution, to admit the complexing of the crime of rebellion with other crimes, would result in making the punishment for rebellion heavier than that of treason. That claim is not entirely correct. The penalty for simple rebellion is still prision mayor. Now, if the rebels besides committing the crime of rebellion, commit other crimes more serious from the standpoint of the penalty, like murder or kidnapping, the penalty for the complex crime necessarily must be more serious than that of prision mayor, but it does not mean that the penalty for rebellion has been raised to say reclusion perpetua to death because the penalty for the complex crime of rebellion with murder is not the penalty for rebellion but the penalty for the more serious crime of murder, in its maximum degree. Let us take the crime of estafa involving an amount not exceeding P200.00, to which the law attaches the relatively light penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. If one is convicted of simple estafa, he can be sentenced to only a few months. But if in committing said estafa he also commits the crime of falsification of a public document, then the resulting crime is a complex one and he may be sentenced to from four to six years imprisonment, a penalty which does not belong to estafa but to the more serious offense of falsification, and in its maximum degree. I want to make it clear that we who have dissented in the Hernandez case have neither the desire nor intention to increase the penalty of rebellion. It may stand as it is, prision mayor; chan

roblesvirtualawlibrarybut if other crimes like murder, robbery and kidnapping are committed as a means to commit rebellion, that is entirely a different matter.

In addition to the considerations I made in my dissenting opinion in the Hernandez case about the complex crime of rebellion with murder, kidnapping, etc., I wish to emphasize the fact that according to the several informations filed in different Courts of First Instance, particularly the different counts contained therein and the arguments adduced by counsel for the government, the murders, kidnappings, arsons, etc., committed by the rebels were so committed not just in outbursts of irresponsibility or for fun or for private motives but that they had an intimate relation with the rebellion itself; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat kidnappings and robberies were committed to raise funds to finance the rebellion, not only to secure food and clothing for the rebels, but also firearms and ammunitions; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat murders were committed in order to institute a reign of terror and panic so that the residents of the outlying barrios finding themselves beyond the protection of the army, would have no choice but to join the rebel movement or cooperate and sympathize with them were it only for purposes of survival; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat houses of innocent civilians are razed to the ground either as an act of reprisal or punishment for disobedience to orders of the rebels and to serve as an example to others; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat wealthy landowners and members of their families were liquidated in line with the idea and doctrine that the landed properties will eventually be distributed among the rebels or become public property under the new regime. Under this aspect of the case, there emerges the picture of the intimate and direct relation between these acts of atrocity and rebellion. From the standpoint of the rebels these acts are means necessary in their effort to overthrow the government and achieve the goal of the rebellion. From this standpoint, I reiterate the contention that the complex crime of rebellion with murder, kidnapping, robbery, etc. can and does exist.

I also agree with the majority that the taking of public funds and equipment from the Provincial Treasury of Laguna under count No. 2 of the information against Appellant, may be absorbed in the rebellion for the reason that it comes within the phrase “distrayendo caudales publicos de su inversion legitima” (diverting of public funds from the legal purpose for which they have been appropriated).

For the foregoing reasons and considerations, I hold that Defendant-Appellant herein should beheld to answer for the killings under count No. 1 of the members of the party of Mrs. Quezon, including herself, a beloved and revered citizen, who had no connection whatsoever with the Government, much less of its armed forces; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryfor the treacherous killing and cutting of the neck of Nemesei Palo under count No.

3, for the reason that he was not a member of the government forces, but a mere policeman a local peace officer of the town of Linmanan, Camarines Sur; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand for the killing of Policarpio Tipay, barrio lieutenant, under count No. 5, because he was a mere civilian official of the lowest category, expected only to help the residents of his barrio voice their needs and interests before the town officials, and receiving no compensation for this civic service. The above mentioned killing under counts 1, 3, and 5 should be complexed with rebellion and the corresponding penalty imposed. In so far as the majority fails to do this, I am constrained to dissent as I do. And failing to secure a conviction for rebellion complexed with the killing of Policarpio Tipay under count 5, I concur with the majoritY in finding Defendant under said count 5 guilty of murder as a separate crime.

Endencia, J., concurs.

PADILLA, J., concurring and dissenting: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Montemayor except as to the inclusion of count No. 1 of the information over which the trial court (the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur) had no jurisdiction because it was committed in Nueva Ecija, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, unless it is intended as an expression of an opinion or a statement of a postulate that the crime of rebellion may be complexed with murder. I wish to add the codifiers of the penal laws of Spain, as embodied in the Penal Codes of 1870 and 1887, could not or did not foresee the development and progress of the Communist movement, as mapped out in the Communist Manifesto of December 1847, which aimed at world revolution and domination and turned more violent since 1917 after the overthrow of the Kerenski Government in Russia that succeeded the Czarist regime. The first edition of Das Kapital by Karl Marx was published in 1867. It is the first volume containing Book 1 which concerns with The Process of Capitalist Production; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand although he had the essential facts or materials of Volume II which was to be Book II aimed at expounding on the Process of Capitalist Circulation, and Book III intended to analyze The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole, and of Volume III to contain Book IV which was to relate a History of Theories of Surplus Value, his death on 14 March 1883 prevented him from completing the work. Frederick Engels, his collaborator, took over and published in May 1885 Volume II, The Process of Capitalist Circulation, and in October 1894 Volume III, the Capitalist Process of Production as a Whole. On 6 August 1895 Engels died and Book IV originally planned as Volume III was not completed. These volumes and books were published by Engels after 1870, the year when the Spanish Penal Code was enacted or promulgated. The turn from exposition of the defects, faults and evils of capitalism and persuasion to forsake it into violent and ruthless means to achieve its discard were not anticipated. The provisions of article 90 of the Penal Code of 1870 and of article 89 of the Penal Code of 1887 were due to the vision and foresight of the Spanish codifiers of their penal laws. Where an indispensable crime is committed to perpetrate another the result is one crime. Where a crime is committed as a means necessary to consummate another the result is a complex one and the penalty provided for the most serious has to be imposed. Rebellion as perpetrated and pursued relentlessly by the Communist is a continuing crime, the ultimate aim of which is to overthrow the existing governments and to set up their own. To attain that end it is not enough for them to achieve partial or local success. They always look forward to and avail themselves of every means and seize every opportunity to realize the ultimate objective. For that reason a crime committed such as murder, robbery, kidnapping, arson and the like, though not indispensable for or to the commission of that of rebellion is nonetheless a means necessary to the attainment of their ultimate finality or end. To create chaos and confusion, to weaken the morale of the populace, to sow terror and infuse into the mind of the people panic and fear so that they would submit meekly to the Communist importunities, demands, imposition, rule, doctrine, political philosophy and policy, are but a means to an end. Viewed in that light I fail to see any juridical objection

or obstacle to the application of the provisions of article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 4000.

As stated in the majority opinion, and without foresaking my view on the point of complexity of rebellion with murder, I agree to the penalties imposed upon the Defendant for two crimes upon his plea of guilty, for the reason that without my concurrence there would be no sufficient number of votes to impose the penalty for the more serious crime.

People vs Lovedioro

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

 

G.R. No. 112235 November 29, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ELIAS LOVEDIORO y CASTRO, defendant-appellant.

 

KAPUNAN, J.:

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. 1

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 y Castro, 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. 2 On autopsy, the municipal health officer established the cause of death as hypovolemic shock.3

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 y Castro of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information reads:

That on or about the 27th day of July, 1992, at more or less 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon, at Burgos Street, Municipality of Daraga, Province of Albay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, together with Gilberto Longasa, who is already charged in Crim. Case No. 5931 before RTC, Branch I, and three (3) others whose true identities are at present unknown and remain at large, conniving, conspiring, confederating and helping one another for a common purpose, armed with firearms, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fire and shoot one SPO3 JESUS LUCILO, a member of the Daraga Police Station, inflicting upon the latter multiple gunshot wounds causing his death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.

After trial, the court a quo found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. The dispositive portion of said decision, dated September 24, 1993 states:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, this Court finds the accused ELIAS LOVEDIORO guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal, acting in conspiracy with his co-accused who are still at large, of the crime of murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessories provided by law; to pay the heirs of the deceased SPO3 Jesus Lucilo through the widow, Mrs. Remeline Lucilo, the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos representing the civil indemnity for death; to pay the said widow the sum of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos representing reasonable moral damages; and to pay the said widow the sum of Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Eight (P18,588.00) Pesos, representing actual damages, without subsidiary imprisonment however, in case of insolvency on the part of the said accused.

With costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED.

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.

Appellant cites the testimony of the prosecution's principal witness, Nestor Armenta, as supporting his claim that he should have been charged with the crime of rebellion, not murder. 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," 4 (said killing) should have been deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion under Arts. 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code. Finally, claiming that he did not fire the fatal shot but merely acted as a look-

out in the liquidation of Lucilo, he avers that he should have been charged merely as a participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion under paragraph 2 of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code and should therefore have been meted only the penalty of prison mayor by the lower court.

Asserting that the trial court correctly convicted appellant of the crime of murder, 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." 5 Moreover, the Solicitor General contends that even if appellant were to be convicted of rebellion, and even if the trial court had found appellant guilty merely of being a participant in a rebellion, the proper imposable penalty is not prision mayor as appellant contends, but reclusion temporal, because Executive Order No. 187 as amended by Republic Act No. 6968, the Coup D'etat Law, prescribes reclusion temporal as the penalty imposable for individuals found guilty as participants in a rebellion.

We agree with the Solicitor General that the crime committed was murder and not rebellion.

Under Art. 134 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6968, rebellion is committed in the following manner:

[B]y rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. 6

The gravamen of the crime of rebellion is an armed public uprising against the government. 7 By its very nature, rebellion is essentially a crime of masses or multitudes involving crowd action, which cannot be confined a prioriwithin predetermined bounds. 8 One aspect noteworthy in the commission of rebellion is that other acts committed in its pursuance are, by law, absorbed in the crime itself because they acquire a political character. This peculiarity was underscored in the case of People v. Hernandez, 9 thus:

In short, 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.

Divested of its common complexion therefore, any ordinary act, however grave, assumes a different color by being absorbed in the crime of rebellion, which carries a lighter penalty than the crime of murder. In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, not murder, it becomes imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a political end. The political motive of the act should be conclusively demonstrated.

In such cases, the burden of demonstrating political motive falls on the defense, motive, being a state of mind which the accused, better than any individual, knows. Thus, in People v. Gempes, 10 this court stressed that:

Since this is a matter that lies peculiarly with (the accused's) knowledge and since moreover this is an affirmative defense, the burden is on them to prove, or at least to state, which they could easily do personally or through witnesses, that they killed the deceased in furtherance of the resistance movement.

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 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. 11

Clearly, political motive should be established before a person charged with a common crime — alleging rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable penalty — could benefit from the law's relatively benign attitude towards political crimes. Instructive in this regard is the case of Enrile v. Amin, 12 where the prosecution sought to charge Senator Juan Ponce Enrile with violation of P.D. No. 1829, 13 for allegedly harboring or concealing in his home Col. Gregorio Honasan in spite of the senator's knowledge that Honasan might have committed a crime. This Court held, against the prosecution's contention, that rebellion and violation of P.D 1829 could be tried separately 14 (on the principle that rebellion is based on the Revised Penal Code while P.D. 1829 is a special law), that the act for which the senator was being charged, though punishable under a special law, was absorbed in the crime of rebellion being motivated by, and related to the acts for which he was charged in Enrile vs. Salazar (G.R. Nos. 92163 and 92164) a case decided on June 5, 1990. Ruling in favor of Senator Enrile and holding that the prosecution for violation of P.D. No. 1829 cannot prosper because a separate prosecution for rebellion had already been filed and in fact decided, the Court said:

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. 15

Noting the importance of purpose in cases of rebellion the court in Enrile vs. Amin further underscored that:

[I]ntent 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, that is in furtherance of rebellion, then it should be deemed to form part of the crime of rebellion instead of being punished separately.

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.

The similarity of some of the factual circumstances of People v. Ompad, Jr., 16 to the instant case is striking. Two witnesses, both former NPA recruits identified the accused Ompad, alias "Commander Brando," a known hitman of the NPA, as having led three other members of the NPA in the liquidation of Dionilo Barlaan, a military informer, also in a rebel infested area. In spite of his notoriety as an NPA hitman, Ompad was merely charged with and convicted of murder, not rebellion because political motive was neither alleged nor proved.

As stated hereinabove, the burden of proof that the act committed was impelled by a political motive lies on the accused. Political motive must be alleged in the information. 17 It must be established by clear and satisfactory evidence. In People v. Paz and Tica we held:

That the killing was in pursuance of the Huk rebellion is a matter of mitigation or defense that the accused has the burden of proving clearly and satisfactorily. The lone uncorroborated assertion of appellant that his superiors told him of Dayrit being an informer, and his suspicion that he was one such, is neither sufficient or adequate to establish that the motivation for the killing was political, considering appellant's obvious interest in testifying to that effect. 18

Similarly, in People v. Buco, 19 the Court stressed that accused in that case failed to establish that the reason for the killing of their victim was to further or carry out rebellion. The evidence adduced by the defense therein simply showed that appellant Francisco Buco was ordered by Tomas Calma, alias "Commander Sol" to kill municipal mayor Conrado G. Dizon. However, the evidence likewise showed that Calma was induced by an acquaintance, a civilian, to order the killing on account of private differences over a ninety (90) hectare piece of land. The court attributed no political motive for the killing, though committed by known members of the Hukbalahap movement. 20

People v. Dasig 21 has a factual milieu almost similar to the instant case. There, the Court held that "the act of killing a police officer, knowing too well that the victim is a person in authority is a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of a rebellion." In Dasig the Court however noted that the accused, who was charged with murder, not only admitted his membership with the NPA but also executed an extrajudicial confession to the effect that he was a member of an NPA "sparrow unit," a fact to which even the Solicitor General, in his brief therein was in agreement. The Solicitor General's brief in Dasig which this Court favorably quoted, noted that:

[T]he sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the New People's Army with the objective of overthrowing the duly constituted government. It is therefore not hard to comprehend that the killing of Pfc. Manatad was committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends of the NPA. 22

By contrast, the Solicitor General vigorously argues for a different result in the case at bench. He states that accused-appellant's belated claims to membership in the NPA were

not only insubstantial but also self serving 23an averment to which, given a thorough review of the circumstances of the case, we fully agree. He states:

[In the case cited] the appellants, admittedly members of the NPA, clearly overcame the burden of proving motive or intent. It was shown that the political motivation for the killing of the victim was the fact that Ragaul was suspected as an informer for the PC. The perpetrators even left a letter card, a drawing on the body of Ragaul as a warning to others not to follow his example. It is entirely different in the case at bar where the evidence for the appellant merely contains self-serving assertions and denials not substantial enough as anindicia of political motivation in the killing of victim SPO3 Jesus Lucilo. 24

In the case at bench, the appellant, assisted by counsel, admitted in his extrajudicial confession to having participated in the killing of Lucilo as follows:

Q What was that incident if any, please narrate?

A July 27, 1992 at more or less 12:00 noon. I am at home, three male person a certainalias ALWIN, ALIAS SAMUEL and the other one unknown to me, fetched me and told me to go with them, so I asked them where, Alwin handed me a hand gun and same he stopped/call a passenger jeepney and told me board on said jeepney. (sic)

Q Please continue.

A Upon reaching Daraga, Albay fronting Petron Gasoline Station, we alighted on said jeep, so we walk towards Daraga Bakery we stopped walking due to it is raining, when the rain stopped we continue walking by using the road near the bakery. (sic)

Q When you reached Daraga bakery, as you have said in Q. 7 you used the road near the bakery where did you proceed?

A I am not familiar with that place, but I and my companion continue walking, at more less 4:30 P.M. July 27, 1992 one of my companion told us as to quote in Bicol dialect, to wit: "AMO NA YADI AN TINAMPO PALUWAS" (This is the place towards the poblacion), so, I placed myself just ahead of a small store, my three (3) companions continue walking towards poblacion, later on a policeman sporting white T-shirt and a khaki pant was walking towards me, while the said policeman is nearly approaching me, ALWIN shot the said policeman in front of the small store, when the said policeman fell on the asphalted road, ALWIN took the service firearm of the said policeman, then we ran towards the subdivision, then my two (2) companions commanded a tricycle then we fled until we reached a hill wherein there is a small bridge, thereafter Ka Samuel took the

handgun that was handed to me by them at Pilar, Sorsogon. (sic)

Q Do you know the policeman that was killed by your companion?

A I just came to know his name when I reached home and heard it radio, that he is JESUS LUCILO. (sic)

Q What is your participation in the group?

A Look-out sir.

Q I have nothing more to asked you what else, if there is any? (sic)

A No more sir. 25

It bears emphasis that nowhere in his entire extrajudicial confession did appellant ever mention that he was a member of the New People's Army. A thorough reading of the same reveals nothing which would suggest that the killing in which he was a participant was motivated by a political purpose. Moreover, the information filed against appellant, based on sworn statements, did not contain any mention or allusion as to the involvement of the NPA in the death of SPO3 Lucilo. 26 Even prosecution eyewitness Nestor Armenta did not mention the NPA in his sworn statement of October 19, 1992. 27

As the record would show, allegations relating to appellant's membership in the NPA surfaced almost merely as an afterthought, something which the defense merely picked up and followed through upon prosecution eyewitness Armenta's testimony on cross-examination that he knew appellant to be a member of the NPA. Interestingly, however, in the same testimony, Armenta admitted that he was "forced" to pinpoint appellant as an NPA member.28 The logical result, of course, was that the trial court did not give any weight and credence to said testimony. The trial court, after all, had the prerogative of rejecting only a part of a witness' testimony while upholding the rest of it. 29 While disbelieving the portion of Armenta's testimony on appellant's alleged membership in the NPA, the trial court correctly gave credence to his unflawed narration about how the crime was committed. 30 Such narration is even corroborated in its pertinent portions, except as to the identity of the gun wielder, by the testimony of the appellant himself.

In any case, appellant's claim regarding the political color attending the commission of the crime being a matter of defense, its viability depends on his sole and unsupported testimony. He testified that, upon the prodding of aliasAlwin and alias Samuel, he joined the NPA because of the organization's goals. 31 He claimed that his two companions shot Lucilo because he "had offended our organization," 32 without, however, specifying what the "offense" was. Appellant claimed that he had been a member of the NPA for five months before the shooting incident. 33

As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, appellant's contentions are couched in terms so general and non-specific 34 that they offer no explanation as to what contribution the killing would have made towards the achievement of the NPA's subversive aims. SPO3 Jesus Lucilo, a mere policeman, was never alleged to be an informer. No acts of his were specifically shown to have offended the NPA. Against appellant's attempts to shade his participation in the killing with a political color, the evidence on record leaves the impression that appellant's bare allegations of membership in the NPA was conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty imposable upon him. It is of judicial notice that in many NPA infested areas, crimes have been all-too-quickly attributed to the furtherance of an ideology or under the cloak of political color for the purpose of mitigating the imposable penalty when in fact they are no more than ordinary crimes perpetrated by common criminals. In Baylosis v. Chavez, Jr., Chief Justice Narvasa aptly observed:

The existence of rebellious groups in our society today, and of numerous bandits, or irresponsible or deranged individuals, is a reality that cannot be ignored or belittled. Their activities, the killings and acts of destruction and terrorism that they perpetrate, unfortunately continue unabated despite the best efforts that the Government authorities are exerting, although it may be true that the insurrectionist groups of the right or the left no longer pose a genuine threat to the security of the state. The need for more stringent laws and more rigorous law-enforcement, cannot be gainsaid. 35

In the absence of clear and satisfactory evidence pointing to a political motive for the killing of SPO3 Jesus Lucilo, we are satisfied that the trial court correctly convicted appellant of the crime of murder. 36 It is of no moment that a single eyewitness, Nestor Armenta, sealed his fate, for it is settled that the testimony of one witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to convict. 37 Against appellant's claims that he acted merely as a look-out, the testimony of one witness, his blood relative, free from any signs of impropriety or falsehood, was sufficient to convict the accused. 38 Moreover, neither may lack of motive be availing to exculpate the appellant. Lack or absence of motive for committing a crime does not preclude conviction, there being a reliable eyewitness who fully and satisfactorily identified appellant as the perpetrator of the felony. 39 In the case at bench, the strength of the prosecution's case was furthermore bolstered by accused-appellant's admission in open court that he and the eyewitness, his own uncle, bore no grudges against each other. 40

Finally, treachery was adequately proved in the court below. The attack delivered by appellant was sudden, and without warning of any kind. 41 The killing having been qualified by treachery, the crime committed is murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. 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.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the trial court's decision dated September 14, 1993, sentencing the accused of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED, in toto.

SO ORDERED.