You are on page 1of 33

[G.R. No. 92163. June 5, 1990.

] General filed a consolidated return 6 for the


IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR respondents in this case and in G.R. No. 92164, 7
HABEAS CORPUS. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, which had been contemporaneously but
petitioner, vs. JUDGE JAIME SALAZAR separately filed by two of Senator Enrile's co-
(Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court accused, the spouses Rebecco and ErlindaPanlilio,
of Quezon City [Br. 103], SENIOR STATE and raised similar questions. Said return urged
PROSECUTOR AURELIO TRAMPE, that the petitioners' case does not fall within the
PROSECUTOR FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS, Hernandez rulingbecause and this is putting it
AND CITY ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR very simply the information in Hernandez
EULOGIO MANANQUIL, NATIONAL BUREAU charged murders and other common crimes
OF INVESTIGATION DIRECTOR ALFREDO LIM, committed as a necessary means for the
BRIG. GEN. EDGAR DULA TORRES commission of rebellion, whereas the information
(Superintendent of the Northern Police against Sen. Enrile et al. charged murder and
District) AND/OR ANY AND ALL PERSONS frustrated murder committed on the occasion, but
WHO MAY HAVE ACTUAL CUSTODY OVER THE not in furtherance, of rebellion. Stated otherwise,
PERSON OF JUAN PONCE ENRILE, the Solicitor General would distinguish between
respondents. the complex crime ("delitocomplejo") arising from
[G.R. No. 92164. June 5, 1990.] an offense being a necessary means for
SPS. REBECCO E. PANLILIO AND ERLINDA E. committing another, which is referred to in the
PANLILIO, petitioners, vs. PROSECUTORS second clause of Article 48, Revised Penal Code,
FERNANDO DE LEON, AURELIO C. TRAMPE, and is the subject of the Hernandez ruling, and
FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS, AND EULOGIO C. the compound crime ("delitocompuesto") arising
MANANQUIL, and HON. JAIME W. SALAZAR, from a single act constituting two or more grave
JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, or less grave offenses referred to in the first
Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch clause of the same paragraph, with which
103, respondents. Hernandez was not concerned and to which,
therefore, it should not apply.
TOPIC: Rebellion, Insurrection, Coup' d'etat The parties were heard in oral argument, as
scheduled, on March 6, 1990, after which the
FACTS: The facts are not in dispute. In the Court issued its Resolution of the same date
afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate 8granting Senator Enrile and the Panlilio spouses
Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrilewas provisional liberty conditioned upon their filing,
arrested by law enforcement officers led by within 24 hours from notice, cash or surety bonds
Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of of P100,000.00 (for Senator Enrile) and
Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued P200,000.00 (for the Panlilios), respectively. The
by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the Regional Trial Court Resolution stated that it was issued without
of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. prejudice to a more extended resolution on the
9010941. The warrant had issued on an matter of the provisional liberty of the petitioners
information signed and earlier that day filed by a and stressed that it was not passing upon the
panel of prosecutors composed of Senior State legal issues raised in both cases. Four Members
Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, State Prosecutor of the Court 9 voted against granting bail to
Ferdinand R. Abesamis and Assistant City Senator Enrile, and two 10 against granting bail
Prosecutor EulogioMananquil, Jr., charging to the Panlilios.
Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and ISSUE: WON petitioners committed a complex
ErlindaPanlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion.
crime of rebellion with murder and multiple HELD: NO.
frustrated murder allegedly committed during the The parties' oral and written pleas presented the
period of the failed coup attempt from November Court with the following options:
29 to December 10, 1990. Senator Enrile was (b) hold Hernandez applicable only
taken to and held overnight at the NBI to offenses committed in
headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, furtherance, or as a necessary
none having been recommended in the means for the commission, of
information and none fixed in the arrest warrant. rebellion, but not to acts committed
The following morning, February 28, 1990, he was in the course of a rebellion which
brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon City also constitute "common" crimes of
where he was given over to the custody of the grave or less grave character;
Superintendent of the Northern Police District,
Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres. 3
On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator
Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for
habeas corpus herein (which was followed by a On the second option, the Court unanimously
supplemental petition filed on March 2, 1990), voted to reject the theory that Hernandez is, or
alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional should be, limited in its application to offenses
rights in being, or having been: committed as a necessary means for the
(a) held to answer for criminal offense commission of rebellion and that the ruling
which does not exist in the should not be interpreted as prohibiting the
statute books; complexing of rebellion with other common
crimes committed on the occasion, but not in
furtherance, thereof. While four Members of the
Court felt that the proponents' arguments were
not entirely devoid of merit, the consensus was
The Court issued the writ prayed for, returnable that they were not sufficient to overcome what
March 5, 1990 and set the plea for hearing on appears to be the real thrust of Hernandez to rule
March 6, 1990. 5 On March 5, 1990, the Solicitor out the complexing of rebellion with any other
offense committed in its course under either of 48 is readily discernible. When two
the aforecited clauses of Article 48, as is made or more crimes are the result of a
clear by the following excerpt from the majority single act, the offender is deemed
opinion in that case: less perverse than when he
"There is one other reason and commits said crimes thru separate
a fundamental one at that why and distinct acts. Instead of
Article 48 of our Penal Code sentencing him for each crime
cannot be applied in the case at independently from the other, he
bar. If murder were not complexed must suffer the maximum of the
with rebellion, and the two crimes penalty for the more serious one,
were punished separately on the assumption that it is less
(assuming that this could be grave than the sum total of the
done), the following penalties separate penalties for each
would be imposable upon the offense." 12
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 The rejection of both options shapes and
present, but never exceeding 12 determines the primary ruling of the Court, which
years of prision mayor; and (2) for is that Hernandez remains binding doctrine
the crime of murder, reclusion operating to prohibit the complexing of
temporal in its maximum period to rebellion with any other offense committed
death, depending upon the on the occasion thereof, either as a means
modifying circumstances present. necessary to its commission or as an
In other words, in the absence of unintended effect of an activity that
aggravating circumstances, the constitutes rebellion.
extreme penalty could not be The Court rules further (by a vote of 11 to 3) that
imposed upon him. However, the information filed against the petitioner does
under Article 48 said penalty in fact charge an offense. Disregarding the
would have to be meted out to objectionable phrasing that would complex
him, even in the absence of a rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
single aggravating circumstance. murder, that indictment is to be read as charging
Thus, said provision, if construed simple rebellion. Thus, in Hernandez, the Court
in conformity with the theory of said:
the prosecution, would be "In conclusion, we hold that, under
unfavorable to the movant. the allegations of the amended
"Upon the other hand, said Article information against defendant-
48 was enacted for the purpose of appellant Amado V. Hernandez,
favoring the culprit, not of the murders, arsons and robberies
sentencing him to a penalty more described therein are mere
severe than that which would be ingredients of the crime of
proper if the several acts rebellion allegedly committed by
performed by him were punished said defendants, as means
separately. In the words of "necessary" (4) for the
Rodriguez Navarro: perpetration of said offense of
and that our Article 48 does not rebellion; that the crime charged
contain the qualification inserted in the aforementioned amended
in said amendment, restricting the information is, therefore, simple
imposition of the penalty for the rebellion, not the complex crime of
graver offense in its maximum rebellion with multiple murder,
period to the case when it does arsons and robberies; that the
not exceed the sum total of the maximum penalty imposable
penalties imposable if the acts under such charge cannot exceed
charged were dealt with twelve (12) years of prision mayor
separately. The absence of said and a fine of P2H,HHH; and that,
limitation in our Penal Code does in conformity with the policy of
not, to our mind, affect this court in dealing with accused
substantially the spirit of said persons amenable to a similar
Article 48. Indeed, if one act punishment, said defendant may
constitutes two or more offenses, be allowed bail." 1 3
there can be no reason to inflict a The plaint of petitioner's counsel that he is
punishment graver than that charged with a crime that does not exist in
prescribed for each one of said the statute books, while technically correct
offenses put together. In directing so far as the Court has ruled that rebellion
that the penalty for the graver may not be complexed with other offenses
offense be, in such case, imposed committed on the occasion thereof, must
in its maximum period, Article 48 therefore be dismissed as a mere flight of
could have had no other purpose rhetoric. Read in the context of Hernandez,
than to prescribe a penalty lower the information does indeed charge the
than the aggregate of the petitioner with a crime defined and punished
penalties for each offense, if by the Revised Penal Code: simple
imposed separately. The reason rebellion.
for this benevolent spirit of Article
WHEREFORE, the Court reiterates that based on On March 21, 1990, the petitioner filed a Motion
the doctrine enunciated in People vs. Hernandez, for Reconsideration and to Quash/Dismiss the
the questioned information filed against Information on the grounds that:
petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the spouses
Rebecco and ErlindaPanliliomust be read as [other grounds deleted, not relevant]
charging simple rebellion only, hence said
petitioners are entitled to bail, before final (c) The pending charge of rebellion complexed
conviction, as a matter of right. The Court's with murder and frustrated murder against
earlier grant of bail to petitioners being merely Senator Enrile as alleged co-conspirator of Col.
provisional in character, the proceedings in both Honasan, on the basis of their alleged meeting on
cases are ordered REMANDED to the respondent December 1, 1989 preclude the prosecution of
Judge to fix the amount of bail to be posted by the Senator for harboring or concealing the
the petitioners. Once bail is fixed by said Colonel on the same occasion under PD 1829.
respondent for any of the petitioners, the
corresponding bail bond filed with this Court shall
become functusoficio. No pronouncement as to On May 10, 1990, the respondent court issued an
costs. order denying the motion for reconsideration for
SO ORDERED. alleged lack of merit and setting Senator Enrile's
arraignment to May 30, 1990.
TOPIC: Rebellion
The petitioner comes to this Court on certiorari
G.R. No. 93335 September 13, 1990 imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to
JUAN PONCE ENRILE, petitioner, lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the
vs. respondent court in refusing to quash/ dismiss
HON. OMAR U. AMIN, Presiding Judge of the information on the following grounds, to wit:
Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 135,
HON. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, Presiding
Judge of Regional Trial Court of Makati, I. The facts charged do not constitute an
Branch 134, Pairing Judge, SPECIAL offense;
COMPOSITE TEAM of: Senior State
Prosecutor AURELIO TRAMPE, State II. The alleged harboring or concealing by
Prosecutor FERDINAND ABESAMIS and Asst. Sen. Enrile of Col. Honasan in a supposed
City Prosecutor EULOGIO MANANQUIL; and meeting on 1 December 1989 is absorbed
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. in, or is a component element of, the
"complexed" rebellion presently charged
FACTS: Together with the filing of an information against Sen. Enrile as alleged co-conspirator
charging Senator Juan Ponce Enrile as having of Col. Honasan on the basis of the same
committed rebellion complexed with meeting on 1 December 1989;
murder 1 with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, government prosecutors filed another III. The orderly administration of Justice
information charging him for violation of requires that there be only one prosecution
Presidential Decree No. 1829 with the Regional for all the component acts of rebellion;
Trial Court of Makati. The second information
reads: [other grounds deleted, not relevant]

That on or about the 1st day of December On May 20, 1990 we issued a temporary
1989, at Dasmarias Village, Makati, Metro restraining order enjoining the respondents from
Manila and within the jurisdiction of this conducting further proceedings in Criminal Case
Honorable Court, the above-named No. 90-777 until otherwise directed by this Court.
accused, having reasonable ground to
believe or suspect that Ex-Col. Gregorio Respondent Judge Amin sustained the charge of
"Gringo" Honasan has committed a crime, violation of PD No. 1829 notwithstanding the
did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, rebellion case filed against the petitioner on the
willfully and knowingly obstruct, impede, theory that the former involves a special law
frustrate or delay the apprehension of said while the latter is based on the Revised Penal
Ex. Lt. Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan by Code or a general law.
harboring or concealing him in his house.
The resolution of the above issue brings us anew
On March 2, 1990, the petitioner filed an Omnibus to the case of People v. Hernandez (99 Phil. 515
Motion (a) to hold in abeyance the issuance of a [1956]) the rulings of which were recently
warrant of arrest pending personal determination repeated in the petition for habeas corpus of Juan
by the court of probable cause, and (b) to dismiss Ponce Enrile v. Judge Salazar, (G.R. Nos. 92163
the case and expunge the information from the and 92164, June 5, 1990). The Enrile case gave
record. this Court the occasion to reiterate the long
standing proscription against splitting the
On March 16, 1990, respondent Judge Ignacio component offenses of rebellion and subjecting
Capulong, as pairing judge of respondent Judge them to separate prosecutions, a procedure
Omar Amin, denied Senator Enrile's Omnibus reprobated in the Hernandez case. This Court
motion on the basis of a finding that "there (was) recently declared:
probable cause to hold the accused Juan Ponce
Enrile liable for violation of PD No. 1829." The rejection of both options shapes and
determines the primary ruling of the Court,
which that Hernandez remains binding
doctrine operating to prohibit the armed, can be inferred that they were co-
complexing of rebellion with any other conspirators in the failed December
offense committed on the occasion thereof, coup. (Annex A, Rollo, p. 65; Emphasis
either as a means to its commission or as supplied)
an unintended effect of an activity that
commutes rebellion. (Emphasis supplied) As can be readily seen, the factual allegations
supporting the rebellion charge constitute or
This doctrine is applicable in the case at bar. If a include the very incident which gave rise to the
person can not be charged with the complex charge of the violation under Presidential Decree
crime of rebellion for the greater penalty to be No. 1829. Under the Department of Justice
applied, neither can he be charged separately for resolution (Annex A, Rollo, p. 49) there is only one
two (2) different offenses where one is a crime of rebellion complexed with murder and
constitutive or component element or committed multiple frustrated murder but there could be 101
in furtherance of rebellion. separate and independent prosecutions for
harboring and concealing" Honasan and 100
The petitioner is presently charged with having other armed rebels under PD No. 1829. The
violated PD No. 1829 particularly Section 1 (c) splitting of component elements is readily
which states: apparent

SECTION 1. The penalty of prison ISSUE: The pivotal issue in this case is whether
correccional in its maximum period, or a or not the petitioner could be separately charged
fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos or for violation of PD No. 1829 notwithstanding the
both, shall be imposed upon any person rebellion case earlier filed against him.
who knowingly or wilfully obstructs,
impedes, frustrates or delays the HELD: No. The crime of rebellion consists of
apprehension of suspects and the many acts. It is described as a vast movement of
investigation and prosecution of criminal men and a complex net of intrigues and plots.
cases by committing any of the following (People v. Almasan [CA] O.G. 1932).
acts: Jurisprudence tells us that acts committed in
furtherance of the rebellion though crimes in
xxxxxxxxx themselves are deemed absorbed in the one
single crime of rebellion. (People v. Geronimo,
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating 100 Phil. 90 [1956]; People v. Santos, 104 Phil.
the escape of, any person he knows, or has 551 [1958]; People v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659
reasonable ground to believe or suspect has [1960]; People v. Lava, 28 SCRA 72 [1969]). In
committed any offense under existing penal this case, the act of harboring or concealing Col.
laws in order to prevent his arrest, Honasan is clearly a mere component or
prosecution and conviction. ingredient of rebellion or an act done in
furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot therefore
xxxxxxxxx be made the basis of a separate charge. The case
of People v. Prieto 2 (80 Phil., 138 [1948]) is
instructive:
The prosecution in this Makati case alleges that
the petitioner entertained and accommodated
Col. Honasan by giving him food and comfort on In the nature of things, the giving of aid and
December 1, 1989 in his house. Knowing that comfort can only be accomplished by some
Colonel Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen. kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a
Enrile allegedly did not do anything to have deed or physical activity as opposed to a
Honasan arrested or apprehended. And because mental operation. (Cramer v. U.S., ante)
of such failure the petitioner prevented Col. This deed or physical activity may be, and
Honasan's arrest and conviction in violation of often is, in itself a criminal offense under
Section 1 (c) of PD No. 1829. another penal statute or provision. Even so,
when the deed is charged as an element of
treason it becomes Identified with the latter
The rebellion charges filed against the petitioner crime and can not be the subject of a
in Quezon City were based on the affidavits separate punishment, or used in
executed by three (3) employees of the Silahis combination with treason to increase the
International Hotel who stated that the fugitive penalty as article 48 of the Revised Penal
Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan and some 100 Code provides. Just as one can not be
rebel soldiers attended the mass and birthday punished for possessing opium in a
party held at the residence of the petitioner in the prosecution for smoking the Identical drug,
evening of December 1, 1989. The information and a robber cannot be held guilty of
(Annex "C", p. 3) particularly reads that on "or coercion or trespass to a dwelling in a
about 6:30 p.m., 1 December, 1989, Col. Gregorio prosecution for robbery, because
"Gringo" Honasan conferred with accused Senator possession of opium and force and trespass
Juan Ponce Enrile accompanied by about 100 fully are inherent in smoking and in robbery
armed rebel soldiers wearing white armed respectively, so may not a defendant be
patches". The prosecution thereby concluded made liable for murder as a separate crime
that: or in conjunction with another offense
where, as in this case, it is averred as a
In such a situation, Sen. Enrile's talking with constitutive ingredient of treason.
rebel leader Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan
in his house in the presence of about 100
uniformed soldiers who were fully
The prosecution tries to distinguish by contending and Rodriguez find no application in this
that harboring or concealing a fugitive is case.
punishable under a special law while the rebellion
case is based on the Revised Penal Code; hence, The Court in the above case upheld the
prosecution under one law will not bar a prosecution for illegal possession of firearms
prosecution under the other. This argument is under PD 1866 because no separate prosecution
specious in rebellion cases. for subversion or rebellion had been filed. 3 The
prosecution must make up its mind whether to
In the light of the Hernandez doctrine the charge Senator Ponce Enrile with rebellion alone
prosecution's theory must fail. The rationale or to drop the rebellion case and charge him with
remains the same. All crimes, whether punishable murder and multiple frustrated murder and also
under a special law or general law, which are violation of P.D. 1829. It cannot complex the
mere components or ingredients, or committed in rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the murder. Neither can it prosecute him for
crime of rebellion and can not be isolated and rebellion in Quezon City and violation of PD
charged as separate crimes in themselves. Thus: 1829 in Makati. It should be noted that
there is in fact a separate prosecution for
This does not detract, however, from the rebellion already filed with the Regional
rule that the ingredients of a crime form Trial Court of Quezon City. In such a case,
part and parcel thereof, and hence, are the independent prosecution under PD 1829
absorbed by the same and cannot be can not prosper.
punished either separately therefrom or by
the application of Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code. ... (People v. Hernandez, supra, REBELLION, INSURRECTION AND COUP D
at p. 528) ETAT

The Hernandez and other related cases VICENTE P. LADLAD ET.AL, petitioners, vs.
mention common crimes as absorbed in the SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR EMMANUEL Y.
crime of rebellion. These common crimes VELASCO ET.AL
refer to all acts of violence such as murder,
arson, robbery, kidnapping etc. as provided FACTS:
in the Revised Penal Code. The attendant
circumstances in the instant case, however, These are consolidated petitions for the writs
constrain us to rule that the theory of of prohibition and certiorari to enjoin
absorption in rebellion cases must not petitioners' prosecution for Rebellion and to
confine itself to common crimes but also to set aside the rulings of the Department of
offenses under special laws which are Justice (DOJ) and the Regional Trial Court of
perpetrated in furtherance of the political Makati City (RTC Makati) on the investigation
offense. and prosecution of petitioners' cases. Petitioner in
G.R. No. 175013, Crispin B. Beltran (Beltran), and
Clearly, the petitioner's alleged act of harboring petitioners in G.R. Nos. 172074-76, Liza L. Maza
or concealing which was based on his acts of (Maza), Joel G. Virador (Virador), Saturnino C.
conspiring with Honasan was committed in Ocampo (Ocampo), Teodoro A. Casio (Casio),
connection with or in furtherance of rebellion and and Rafael V. Mariano (Mariano), 1 are members
must now be deemed as absorbed by, merged in, of the House of Representatives representing
and Identified with the crime of rebellion various party-list groups. 2 Petitioners in G.R.
punished in Articles 134 and 135 of the RPC. Nos. 172070-72 are private individuals.
Noteworthy is the recent case of Misolas v. Panga, Petitioners all face charges for Rebellion under
(G.R. No. 83341, January 30, 1990) where the Article 134 in relation to Article 135 of the
Court had the occasion to pass upon a nearly Revised Penal Code in two criminal cases pending
similar issue. In this case, the petitioner Misolas, with the RTC Makati.
an alleged member of the New Peoples Army
(NPA), was charged with illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions in furtherance of BELTRAN CASE
subversion under Section 1 of PD 1866. In his
motion to quash the information, the petitioner President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued
based his arguments on Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 on 24
the Hernandez and Geronimo rulings on the February 2006 declaring a "State of National
doctrine of absorption of common in rebellion. Emergency. Police Officers arrested Beltran on
The Court, however, clarified, to wit: 25 February 2006, while he was en route to
Marilao, Bulacan, and detained him in Camp
... in the present case, petitioner is being Crame, Quezon City. Beltran was arrested
charged specifically for the qualified offense without a warrant and the arresting officers did
of illegal possession of firearms and not inform Beltran of the crime for which he was
ammunition under PD 1866. HE IS NOT arrested.
BEING CHARGED WITH THE COMPLEX
CRIME OF SUBVERSION WITH ILLEGAL A panel of State prosecutors conducted aninquest
POSSESSION OF FIREARMS. NEITHER IS HE which was based on two letters of Yolanda
BEING SEPARATELY CHARGED FOR Tanigue (Tanigue) and of Rodolfo Mendoza
SUBVERSION AND FOR ILLEGAL (Mendoza). Tanigue is the Acting Executive Officer
POSSESSION OF FIREARMS. Thus, the of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group
(CIDG), Philippine National Police (PNP), while
rulings of the Court in Hernandez, Geronimo
Mendoza is the Acting Deputy Director of the
CIDG. The letters referred to the DOJ for
appropriate action the results of the CIDG's ISSUES: (a) WON the inquest proceeding against
investigation implicating Beltran and several Beltran for Rebellion was valid
others as "leaders and promoters" of an alleged (b) WON there is probable cause to indict Beltran
foiled plot to overthrow the Arroyo government. for Rebellion
The plot was supposed to be carried out jointly by (c) WON the respondent prosecutors should be
members of the Communist Party of the enjoined from continuing with the prosecution of
Philippines (CPP) and the Makabayang Kawal ng Criminal Case No. 06-944
Pilipinas (MKP), which have formed a "tactical
alliance." HELD:

On 27 February 2006, the DOJ panel of (a) No. Inquest proceedings are proper only when
prosecutors issued a Resolution finding probable the accused has been lawfully arrested
cause to indict Beltran and San Juan as without warrant. The joint affidavit of Beltran's
"leaders/promoters" of Rebellion. The panel then arresting officers states that the officers
filed an Information with the RTC Makati. The arrested Beltran, without a warrant, for
Information alleged that Beltran, San Juan, and Inciting to Sedition, and not for
other individuals "conspiring and confederating Rebellion. Thus, the inquest prosecutor could
with each otherdid then and there willfully, only have conducted as he did conduct
unlawfully, and feloniously form a tactical alliance an inquest for Inciting to Sedition and no
between the CPP/NPA, renamed as Partidong other. None of Beltran's arresting officers saw
Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) and its armed Beltran commit, in their presence, the crime of
regular members as Katipunan ng Anak ng Bayan Rebellion. Nor did they have personal
(KAB) with the Makabayang Kawal ng Pilipinas knowledge of facts and circumstances that
(MKP) and thereby rise publicly and take up arms Beltran had just committed Rebellion,
against the duly constituted government sufficient to form probable cause to believe
that he had committed Rebellion. What these
The Solicitor General claims that Beltran's inquest arresting officers alleged in their affidavit is
for Rebellion was valid and that the RTC Makati that they saw and heard Beltran make an
correctly found probable cause to try Beltran for allegedly seditious speech on 24 February
such felony. 2006. For the failure of Beltran's panel of
inquest prosecutors to comply with Section 7,
Rule 112 in relation to Section 5, Rule 113 and
MAZA AND LADLADCASES DOJ Circular No. 61, we declare Beltran's
inquest void. 19 Beltran would have been
Based on Tanigue and Mendoza's letters, the DOJ entitled to a preliminary investigation had he
sent subpoenas to petitioners on 6 March 2006 not asked the trial court to make a judicial
requiring them to appear at the DOJ Office on 13 determination of probable cause, which
March 2006 "to get copies of the complaint and effectively took the place of such proceeding.
its attachment." Prior to their receipt of the
subpoenas, petitioners had quartered themselves (b) No. Probable cause is the "existence of such
inside the House of Representatives building for facts and circumstances as would excite the
fear of being subjected to warrantless arrest. belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor,
A preliminary investigation was done. The panel that the person charged was guilty of the
of prosecutorsgave petitioners 10 days within crime for which he was prosecuted.
which to file their counter-affidavits. Petitioners Rebellionby its nature,is a crime of the masses
were furnished the complete copies of documents or multitudes involving crowd action done in
supporting the CIDG's letters only on 17 March furtherance of a political end. The evidence
2006. before the panel of prosecutors who
conducted the inquest of Beltran for Rebellion
Petitioners moved for the inhibition of the consisted of the affidavits and other
members of the prosecution panel for lack of documents which are insufficient to show
impartiality and independence, considering the probable cause to indict him for Rebellion. The
political milieu under which petitioners were allegations in these affidavits are far from the
investigated, the statements that the President proof needed to indict Beltran for taking part
and the Secretary of Justice made to the media in an armed public uprising against the
regarding petitioners' case,and the manner in government.
which the prosecution panel conducted the
preliminary investigation. To repeat, none of the affidavits alleges that
Beltran is promoting, maintaining, or heading a
The panel of prosecutors issued a Resolution Rebellion. The Information in Criminal Case No.
finding probable cause to charge petitioners and 06-452 itself does not make such allegation.
46 others with Rebellion. The prosecutors filed Thus, even assuming that the Information validly
the corresponding Information with Branch 57 of charges Beltran for taking part in a Rebellion, he
the RTC Makatiharging petitioners and their co- is entitled to bail as a matter of right since there
accused as "principals, masterminds, [or] heads" is no allegation in the Information that he is a
of a Rebellion. leader or promoter of the Rebellion. 33 However,
the Information in fact merely charges Beltran for
"conspiring and confederating" with others in
The Solicitor General submits that the preliminary forming a "tactical alliance" to commit rebellion.
investigation of petitioners was not tainted with As worded, the Information does not charge
irregularities . Beltran with Rebellion but with Conspiracy to
Commit Rebellion, a bailable offense.
(c) Yes. Instead of following this procedure G.R. No. L-6025 May 30, 1964 THE PEOPLE OF
scrupulously, as what this Court had mandated in THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMADO V.
an earlier ruling, "so that the constitutional right HERNANDEZ, ET AL., accused, AMADO V.
to liberty of a potential accused can be protected HERNANDEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
from any material damage," respondent -----------------------------
prosecutors nonchalantly disregarded it. G.R. No. L-6026 May 30, 1964 THE PEOPLE OF
Respondent prosecutors failed to comply with THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BAYANI
Section 3(a) of Rule 112 which provides that the ESPIRITU, ET AL., accused, BAYANI ESPIRITU and
complaint (which, with its attachment, must be of TEOPISTA VALERIO, defendants-appellants.
such number as there are respondents) be
accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant Facts:
and his witnesses, subscribed and sworn to
before any prosecutor or government official In Criminal Case No. 15841 (G.R. No. L-6026) the
authorized to administer oath, or, in their charge is for Rebellion with Multiple Murder,
absence or unavailability, before a notary public. Arsons and Robberies:
Respondent prosecutors treated the unsubscribed
letters of Tanigue and Mendoza of the CIDG, PNP That on or about March 15, 1945,the said
as complaints 39 and accepted the affidavits accused, conspiring, confederating and
attached to the letters even though some of them cooperating with each other, as well as with the
were notarized by a notary public without any thirty-one (31) defendantsthe said accused and
showing that a prosecutor or qualified their other co-conspirators, being then high
government official was unavailable as required ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise
by Section 3(a) of Rule 112. affiliated with the Communist Party of the
Philippines (P.K.P.), which is now actively engaged
A preliminary investigation is the crucial sieve in in an armed rebellion against the Government of
the criminal justice system which spells for an the Philippines thru act theretofore committed
individual the difference between months if not and planned to be further committed in Manila
years of agonizing trial and possibly jail term, on and other places in the Philippines, and of which
the one hand, and peace of mind and liberty, on party the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng
the other hand. Thus, we have characterized the Bayan"(H.M.B.) otherwise or formerly known as
right to a preliminary investigation as not "a mere the "Hukbalahaps" (Huks), unlawfully and did
formal or technical right" but a "substantive" one, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
forming part of due process in criminal justice. 41 feloniously help, support, promote, maintain,
This especially holds true here where the offense cause, direct and/or command the "Hukbong
charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua and Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) or the
may be non-bailable for those accused as "Hukbalahaps" (Huks) to rise publicly and take
principals. arms against the Republic of the Philippines, or
otherwise participate in such armed public
We find merit in petitioners' doubt on respondent uprising, for the purpose of removing the territory
prosecutors' impartiality. Respondent Secretary of of the Philippines from the allegiance to the
Justice, who exercises supervision and control government and laws thereof as in fact the said
over the panel of prosecutors, stated in an "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" or
interview on 13 March 2006, the day of the "Hukbalahaps" have risen publicly and taken
preliminary investigation, that, "We [the DOJ] will arms to attain the said purpose by then and there
just declare probable cause, then it's up to the making armed raids, sorties and ambushes,
C]ourt to decide . . . ." 42 Petitioners raised this attacks against police, constabulary and army
issue in their petition, 43 but respondents never detachments as well as innocent civilians, and as
disputed the veracity of this statement. This a necessary means to commit the crime of
clearly shows pre-judgment, a determination to rebellion, in connection therewith and in
file the Information even in the absence of furtherance thereof, have then and there
probable cause. committed acts ofmurder, pillage, looting,
plunder, arson, and planned destruction of
We reiterate what we stated then, if only to private and public property to create and spread
emphasize the importance of maintaining the chaos, disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate
integrity of criminal prosecutions in general and the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose
preliminary investigations in particular, thus:
That during the period of time and under the
[W]e cannot emphasize too strongly that same circumstances herein-above indicated the
prosecutors should not allow, and should said accused in the above-entitled case,
avoid, giving the impression that their conspiring among themselves and with several
noble office is being used or prostituted, others as aforesaid, willfully, unlawfully and
wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends, feloniously organized, established, led and/or
or other purposes alien to, or subversive maintained the Congress of Labor Organizations
of, the basic and fundamental objective of (CLO), formerly known as the Committee on
observing the interest of justice Labor Organizations (CLO)as an active agency,
evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any organ, and instrumentality of the Communist
and all litigants alike, whether rich or poor, Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.)
weak or strong, powerless or mighty. Only
by strict adherence to the established In Criminal Case No. 15479 (G.R. No. L-6026) the
procedure may be public's perception of charge is for rebellion with murders, arsons and
the impartiality of the prosecutor be kidnappings;
enhanced
That on or about the 6th day of May, 1946,the gone to the field to join the liberation army of the
said accused being then high ranking officials HMB, justifying their going out and becoming
and/or members of the Communist Party of the heroes by fighting in the fields against
Philippines (P.K.P.) and/or of the "Hukbong Government forces until the ultimate goal is
Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) otherwise or achieved.
formerly known as the "Hukbalahaps" (HUKS), the
latter being the armed forces of said Communist On the tie-up between the Communist Party and
Party of the Philippines;decided to commit the the CLO Guillermo Calayag, a Communist and a
crime of rebellion, and therefore, conspiring and Huk from 1942 to 1950, explained:
confederating with all of the 29 accused in said
criminal cases, acting in accordance with their 1. The ultimate goal of the Communist Party is to
conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, together overthrow the president government by force of
with many others whose whereabouts and aims and violence; thru armed revolution and
identities are still unknown up to the filing of this replace it with the so-called dictatorship of the
information, and helping one another, did then proletariat the Communist Party carries its
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously program of armed overthrow of the present
promote maintain, cause, direct and/or command government by organizing the HMB and other
the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan", (HMB) or forms of organization's such as the CLO, PKM,
the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) t union organizations, and the professional and
intellectual group; the CLO was organized by the
APPEAL OF AMADO V. HERNANDEZ Trade Union Division TUD of the Communist Party.

The Court of First Instance found, as against 2. A good majority of the members of the
appellant Amado V. Hernandez, the following: (1) Executive Committee and the Central Committee
that he is a member of the Communist Party of of the CLO were also top ranking officials of the
the Philippines and as such had aliases, namely, Communist Party;
Victor or Soliman; (2) that he was furnished
copies of "Titis", a Communist publication, as well 3. The CLO played its role in the overall
as other publications of the Party; (3) that he held Communist program of armed overthrow of the
the position of President of the Congress of Labor present government and its replacement by the
Organizations; (4) that he had close connections dictatorship of the proletariat by means of
with the Secretariat of the Communist Party and propaganda - by propagating the principles of
held continuous communications with its leaders Communism, by giving monetary aid, clothing,
and its members; (5) that he furnished a medicine and other forms of material help to the
mimeographing machine used by the Communist HMB.
Party, as well as clothes and supplies for the
military operations of the Huks; (6) that he had 4. (4) The CLO also helped carry out the program
contacted well-known Communists coming to the of the Communist Party thru infiltration of party
Philippines and had gone abroad to the WFTU members and selected leaders of the HMB within
conference Brussels, Belgium as a delegate of the the trade unions under the control of the CLO.
CLO.
Important Documents Submitted at Trial
Testimonial Evidence
1. Documents which proved that Amado V.
As a Communist he was given the pseudonyms of Hernandez used the aliases "Victor", or was
Victor and Soliman, and received copies of the referred to as "Victor" or "Soliman".
Communist paper "Titis". He made various
speeches on the following dates and occasions: 2. Letters and Messages of Hernandez.

Balgos told Goufar that the PKM, CLO and the 3. Other Activities of Hernandez.
Huks are in one effort that the PKM are the
peasants in the field and the Huks are the armed The Court upon consideration of the evidence
forces of the Communist Party;Hernandez submitted, found (1) that the Communist Party
delivered a speech and he said that he preferred was fully organized as a party and in order to
to go with the Huks because he felt safer with carry out its aims and policies (2) the SEC
them than with the authorities of the discussed the creation of a Military Committee of
Government; Hernandez delivered a speech and the Party and a new GHQ (3) a body known as the
he said that he preferred to go with the Huks National Intelligence Division was created, to
because he felt safer with them than with the gather essential military intelligence (4) that a
authorities of the Government; attacking the National Finance Committee was also organized
frauds in the 1947 elections, graft and corruption (5) that the country was divided into 10 Recos,
in the elections and that if improvement cannot the 10th Reco comprising the Manila and suburbs
be made by the ballots, they could be made by command; (6) the CPP had declared the existence
bullets; He attacked the city mayor and incited of a revolutionary situation and since then the
the people to go to Balintawak and see Bonifacio Party had gone underground and the CPP is
there and thereafter join four comrades under the leading the armed struggle for national liberation
leadership of Luis Taruc; He asked the (7) that in accordance with such plan the CPP
unemployed to approve a resolution urging the prepared plans for expansion and development
Government to give them jobs. In conclusion he not only of the Party but also of the HMB.
said that if the Government fails to give them
jobs the only way out was to join the It is not, however, the theory of the prosecution
revolutionary forces fighting in the hills; In his talk that they in fact had direct participation in the
Hernandez expressed regret that two foremost commission of the same but rather that the
leaders of the CLO, Balgos and Capadocia, had defendants in these cases have cooperated,
conspired and confederated with the Communist The court implicates the appellant Hernandez as
Party in the prosecution and successful a co-conspirator in this resolution or acts of the
accomplishment of the aims and purposes of the Communist Party by his mere membership
said Party thru the organization called the CLO thereto. We find this conclusion unwarranted. The
(Congress of Labor Organizations). seditious speeches of Hernandez took place
before November, 1949 when the CPP went
Issue: WON HERNANDEZ IS GUILTY OF REBELLION underground. The court below has not been able
to point out, nor have We been able to find
among all acts attributed to Hernandez, any
RULING: single fact or act of his from which it may be
inferred that he took part in the deliberations
No. On the basis of the above findings, the court declaring the existence of a revolutionary
below found Hernandez guilty as principal of the situation, or that he had gone underground. As a
crime charged against him and sentenced him to matter of fact the prosecution's evidence is to the
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the effect that Hernandez refused to go underground
accessories provided by law, and to pay the preferring to engage in what they consider the
proportionate amount of the costs. legal battle for the cause.

Our study of the testimonial and documentary That Hernandez refused to go underground is a
evidence, especially those cited by the Court in fact which is further corroborated by the following
its decision and by the Solicitor General in his reasons (excuses) given by him for not going
brief, discloses that defendant-appellant Amado underground, namely (1) that his term of
V. Hernandez, as a Communist, was an active councilor of the City of Manila was to extend to
advocate of the principles of Communism, December, 1951; and (2) that he was elected
frequently exhorting his hearers to follow the President of the CLO for a term which was to end
footsteps of Taruc and join the uprising of the the year 1951.
laboring classes against capitalism and more
specifically against America and the Quirino The acts of the appellant as thus explained and
administration, which he dubbed as a regime of analyzed fall under the category of acts of
puppets of American imperialism. propaganda, but do not prove that he actually
and in fact conspired with the leaders of the
Hernandez is the founder and head of the CLO. As Communist Party in the uprising or in the actual
such, what was his relation to the rebellion? If, as rebellion, for which acts he is charged in the
testified to by Guillermo S. Calayag, the CLO information.
plays merely the role of propagation by lectures,
meetings and organization of committees of For which reason We hold that the evidence
education by Communists; if, as stated, the CLO submitted fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt
merely allowed Communist Party leaders to act as that he has conspired in the instigation of the
organizers in the different factories, to rebellion for which he is held to account in this
indoctrinate the CLO members into the criminal case.
Communist Party and proselytize them to the
Communist ideology; if, as also indicated by The question that next comes up for resolution is:
Calayag, the CLO purports to attain the ultimate Does his or anyone's membership in the
overthrow of the Government first by making Communist Party per se render Hernandez or any
demands from employers for concessions until Communist guilty of conspiracy to commit
the employers find it difficult to grant the same, rebellion under the provisions of Article 136 of the
at which time a strike is declared; if it is only after Revised Penal Code? The pertinent provision
the various strikes have been carried out and a reads:
crisis is thereby developed among the laboring
class, that the Communist forces would intervene ART. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit
and carry the revolution it is apparent that the rebellion or insurrection. The conspiracy and
CLO was merely a stepping stone in the proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall
preparation of the laborers for the Communist' be punished, respectively, by prision correccional
ultimate revolution. In other words, the CLO had in its maximum period and a fine which shall not
no function but that of indoctrination and exceed 5,000 pesos, and by prision correccional
preparation of the members for the uprising that in its medium period and a fine not exceeding
would come. It was only a preparatory 2,000 pesos.
organization prior to revolution, not the revolution
itself. The leader of the CLO therefore, namely The advocacy of Communism or Communistic
Hernandez, cannot be considered as a leader in theory and principle is not to be considered as a
actual rebellion or of the actual uprising subject criminal act of conspiracy unless transformed or
of the accusation. Hernandez, as President of the converted into an advocacy of action. In the very
CLO therefore, by his presidency and leadership nature of things, mere advocacy of a theory or
of the CLO cannot be considered as having principle is insufficient unless the communist
actually risen up in arms in rebellion against the advocates action, immediate and positive, the
Government of the Philippines, or taken part in actual agreement to start an uprising or rebellion
the conspiracy to commit the rebellion as or an agreement forged to use force and violence
charged against him in the present case; he was in an uprising of the working class to overthrow
merely a propagandist and indoctrinator of constituted authority and seize the reins of
Communism, he was not a Communist conspiring Government itself. Unless action is actually
to commit the actual rebellion by the mere fact of advocated or intended or contemplated, the
his presidency of the CLO. Communist is a mere theorist, merely holding
belief in the supremacy of the proletariat a
Communist does not yet advocate the seizing of advocacy of action, namely, actual rebellion or
the reins of Government by it. conspiracy to commit rebellion, or acts conducive
thereto or evincing the same.
The most important activity of appellant
Hernandez appears to be the propagation of On the other hand, membership in the HMB
improvement of conditions of labor through his (Hukbalahap) implies participation in an actual
organization, the CLO. While the CLO of which he uprising or rebellion to secure, as the Huks
is the founder and active president, has pretend, the liberation of the peasants and
communistic tendencies, its activity refers to the laboring class from thraldom. By membership in
strengthening of the unity and cooperation the HMB, one already advocates uprising and the
between labor elements and preparing them for use of force, and by such membership he agrees
struggle; they are not yet indoctrinated in the or conspires that force be used to secure the
need of an actual war with or against Capitalism. ends of the party. Such membership, therefore,
The appellant was a politician and a labor leader even if there is nothing more, renders the
and it is not unreasonable to suspect that his member guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion
labor activities especially in connection with the punishable by law.
CLO and other trade unions, were impelled and
fostered by the desire to secure the labor vote to PEOPLE VS. EVANGELISTA, 57 PHIL. 354 AND
support his political ambitions. It is doubtful REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1700, DISTINGUISHED
whether his desire to foster the labor union of
which he was the head was impelled by an actual In the case at bar the prosecution is for actual
desire to advance the cause of Communism, not rebellion which consists in rising publicly and
merely to advance his political aspirations. taking aims against the Government for the
purpose of removing from the allegiance to said
Insofar as the appellant's alleged activities as a Government or its laws, the territory of the
Communist are concerned, We have not found, Philippines, or any part thereof, etc., a crime
nor has any particular act on his part been defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code;
pointed to Us, which would indicate that he had whereas Evangelista was charged and convicted
advocated action or the use of force in securing for inciting to rebellion under Art. 138, Revised
the ends of Communism. Penal Code (formerly Sec. 2, Act No. 292). As the
specific charge against appellants is that of rising
We next consider the question as to whether the up in arms in actual rebellion against the
fact that Hernandez delivered speeches of Government, they cannot be held guilty of
propaganda in favor of Communism and in favor inciting the people to arms under Article 138,
of rebellion can be considered as a criminal act of which is a different offense.
conspiracy to commit rebellion as defined in the
law. In this respect, the mere fact of his giving On the other hand, Rep. Act 1700, known as the
and rendering speeches favoring Communism Anti-subversion Act, which penalizes membership
would not make him guilty of conspiracy, because in any organization or association committed to
there was no evidence that the hearers of his subvert the Government, cannot be applied to
speeches of propaganda then and there agreed the appellants because said Act was approved on
to rise up in arms for the purpose of obtaining the June 20, 1957 and was not in force at the time of
overthrow of the democratic government as the commission of the acts charged against
envisaged by the principles of Communism. appellants (committed 1945-1950) ; the Anti-
Subversion Act punishes participation or
In view of all the above circumstances We find membership in an organization committed to
that there is no concrete evidence proving overthrow the duly constituted Government, a
beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant crime district from that of actual rebellion with
(Hernandez) actually participated in the rebellion which appellants are charged.
or in any act of conspiracy to commit or foster
the cause of the rebellion. We are constrained, in
view of these circumstances, to absolve, as We
hereby absolve, the appellant Amado V.
Hernandez from the crime charged. Topic: Sedition
G.R. No. 17748 March 4, 1922
APPEAL OF OTHER DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
All the other defendants were found guilty as vs.
accomplices in the crime of rebellion as charged GRACIANO L. CABRERA, ET AL., defendants-
in the information and were each sentenced to appellants.
suffer the penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision
mayor, with the accessories provided by law, and Facts: As one outcome of the tumultuous uprising
to pay their proportionate share of the costs. of certain members of the Philippine
Constabulary to inflict revenge upon the police of
To begin with, as We have exhaustively discussed the city of Manila, charges of sedition were filed
in relation to the appeal of Hernandez, we do not in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila
believe that mere membership in the Communist against the participants in the public disturbance.
Party or in the CLO renders the member liable, Convicted in the trial court of a violation of Act
either of rebellion or of conspiracy to commit No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, and
rebellion, because mere membership and nothing sentenced either to the maximum penalty or a
more merely implies advocacy of abstract theory near approach to the maximum penalty provided
or principle without any action being induced by the punitive provisions of that law, all of the
thereby; and that such advocacy becomes defendants have perfected an appeal to this
criminal only if it is coupled with action or court.
In the morning of the next day, December 16,
On December 13, 1920, policemen of the city of 1920, Colonel, Lucien R. Sweet of the
Manila arrested a woman who was a member of Constabulary officers, and later by the fiscals of
the household of a Constabulary soldier stationed the city of Manila, commenced an investigation of
at the Santa Lucia Barracks in this city. The arrest the events of the night before. He first ordered
of the woman was considered by some of the that all the soldiers in Santa Lucia Barracks at
Constabulary soldiers as an outrage committed that time, numbering some one hundred and
by the policemen, and it instantly gave rise to eighty, be assembled on the parade ground and
friction between members of Manila police when this was done, the soldiers were separated
department and member of the Philippine into their respective companies. Then Colonel
Constabulary. Sweet, speaking in English with the assistance of
Captain Silvino Gallardo, who interpreted his
The next day, December 14, at about sunset, a remarks into Tagalog, made to all of the soldiers
policemen named Artemio Mojica, posted on Calle two statements.
Real, in the District of Intramuros, city of Manila,
had an encounter with various Constabulary He asked for the statements of the soldiers who
soldiers which resulted in the shooting of private went out that that night and to state their
Macasinag of the Constabulary. Private Macasinag purpose. The statement of the 77 soldiers were
was seriously, and as afterwards appeared, taken in writing and then after there was a
mortally wounded. questionnaire prepared by the Fiscal of Manila in
the language of English or Spanish which they
The encounter between policemen Mojica and answered.
other companions of the Manila force and private
Macasinag and other companions of the The defendants were charged in one information
Constabulary, with its grave consequences for a filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of
Constabulary soldier endangered a deep feeling Manila with the crime of sedition, and in another
of resentment on the part of the soldiers at Santa information filed in the same, court, with the
Lucia Barracks. This resentment was soon crimes of murder and serious physical injuries.
converted into a desire for revenge against the The two cases were tried separately before
police force of the city of Manila. The officers of different judges of first instance.
the Constabulary appear to have been aware of
the state of excitement among the soldiers the
shooting of private Macasinag, Captain Page, the
commanding officer of the Barracks, increased Issue: WON the accused should be charged of a
the number of guards, and confined all the violation of the Treason and Sedition Law
soldiers in the Barracks.
Held: Yes, it was defined by the Courts that
During the afternoon of the next day, December Sedition, in its more general sense, is the raising
15, 1920, a rumor spread among the soldiers in of commotions or disturbances in the State. The
Santa Lucia Barracks to the effect that policeman Philippine law on the subject (Act No. 292) makes
Mojica was allowed to continue on duty on the all persons guilty of sedition who rise publicly and
streets of Intramuros and that private Macasinag tumultuously in order to obtain by force or
had died as a consequence of the shot he outside of legal methods any one of vie objects,
received the night before. This rumor contributed including that of inflicting any act of hate or
in no small degree in precipitating a movement revenge upon the person or property of any
for reprisal by the Constabulary soldiers against official or agent of the Insular Government or of
the policemen. Provincial or Municipal Government. The trial
court found that the crime of sedition, as defined
At about 7 o'clock in the evening of the same and punished by the law, had been committed,
day, December 15, 1920, corporal Ingles of the and we believe that such finding is correct.
Fourth Company approached private Nicolas Torio
who was then the man in charge of quarters, and Counsel's contention that in order for there to be
asked him to let the soldiers out through the a violation of subdivision 3 of section 5 of Act No.
window of the quarters of the Fourth Company. 292 it is and necessary that the offender should
Private Torio was easily persuaded to permit be a private citizen and the offended party a
private Francisco Garcia of the Second Company public functionary, and that what really happened
to saw out the window bars of the quarters, in his in this instance was a fight between two armed
charge, and to allow soldiers to escape through bodies of the Philippine Government, is absolutely
the window with rifles and ammunition under the without foundation. Subdivison 3 of section 5 of
command of their sergeants and corporals. When the Treason and Sedition Law makes no
outside of the quarters, these soldiers divided distinction between the persons to which it
into groups for attack upon the city police force. applies. In one scene there was a fights between
Then they shot and killed lots of people around two armed bodies of the Philippine Government,
Intramuros. but it was an unequal fight brought on by the
actions of the accused.
General Rafael Crame, Chief of the Constabulary,
and Captain Page, commanding officer of the We rule that the trial court did not err in
Santa Lucia Barracks, and other soldiers in the convicting the accused of the violation of section
streets of Manila, and other soldiers one after 5, paragraph 3, of Act No. 292 of the Philippine
another returned to the Barracks where they were Commission.
disarmed. No list of the names of these soldiers
was, however, made.
SEDITION -that this denial of Kamlon was supported by
testimony of the sisters of Muhayla who claimed
G.R. No. L-12686 October 24, 1963
that they saw Muhayla being embraced and held
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. KAMLON by Alling and Ajibun; that when they asked for
HADJI, ET AL.,KAMLON HADJI, help, their and some other villagers who were
FACTS: armed with guns went after Ajibun and Jamalul.

Kamlon Hadji, together with a number of other


defendants, was charged in the Court of First
ISSUE: WON the defendants are guilty of crime
Instance of Sulu for different crimes in various
kidnapping with murder.
cases of rebellion; for multiple murder and
multiple injuries; and together with Ulloh RULING:
Kaddam, et al., for kidnapping with murder and
In the premises and as explained by the Solicitor
attempted murder. (iba ibang GR Nos per case
General's Office, "the incident took place 15 days
ito)
before the last military operations against
The instant appeal pertains solely to Criminal Kamlon. People in the area affected were in the
Case No. 1353 (kidnapping with attempted grip of fear and felt no other than for their
murder) for which the accused, Kamlon, was personal safety. The witnesses could have
found guilty and sentenced to the death penalty. preferred to remain in silence of what they knew
against Kamlon in the hope, however, that with
One morning some two years prior to the trial of
the military operations about to be set afoot,
this case, the herein defendant Kamlon, together
retributive justice would catch up with Kamlon
with two other armed companions, Ulluh and
and his henchmen that they might perish in the
Angkang, set out to look for two men whom they
battle."
suspected were responsible for the
disappearance of two of the followers of the Sedition is a crime against public order;
defendant.The search ended when they found murder is a crime against persons.
JAMALUL ALLING and HATIB AJIBUN. The Sedition is a crime directed against the
defendants threatened to kill them unless they existence of the State, the authority of the
went with them. The defendants thereafter government, and the general public
brought Alling and Ajibun in Tigbas, Luuk District tranquility; murder is a crime directed
where Kamlon resides. Kamlon informed Alling against the lives of individuals. Sedition in
and Ajibun why they were being held captives, its more general sense is the raising of
but the 2 denied having knowledge or commotions or disturbances in the state;
responsibility for the disappearance of Kamlons murder at common law is where a person
men, but Kamlon did not believe them. Hatib of sound mind and discretion unlawfully
Ajibun and Jamalul Alling were detained kills any human being, in the peace of the
overnight. The following day, they were brought sovereign, with malice aforethought,
to the market place and, in a store, they were express or implied.
made to sit on chairs,+ one beside the other. On
The offenses charged in the two
being ordered by Kamlon, their hands were then
informations for sedition and murder are
tied to the roof by Ulluh (companion). Kamlon
perfectly distinct in point of law however
thereafter pointed an automatic carbine at Alling
nearly they may be connected in point of
and fired, killing him instantly. Ulluh, upon the
fact.
order of Kamlon, cut the neck of Alling with the
use of barong or native bolo. We proceeded to convict the defendants
therein of the said crime of sedition and the
Ulluh loaded the headless body and the head to
common crimes of murder, frustrated
his vinta in the shore, then he paddled. When he
murder, etc. "
returned, he no longer have with him the head
and the body. Ajibun, on the otherhand, was not Clearly then, the rule obtaining in this
killed but instead was brought back to the house jurisdiction allows for the treatment of the
of Kamlon for trial to be conducted by Kamlon common offenses of murder etc. as distinct
himself for his alleged participation in the and independent acts separable from
disappearance of Kamlons 2 men. Kamlon sedition.
decided Ajibuns guilt and asked him to raise
In citing the cases of Hernandez and Geronimo,
105pesos as fine, then he was set free.
supra, it seems to Us that the herein defendant
KAMLONS VERSION OF STORY: missed a very significant point. When We held in
those two cases that murder and other acts of
-that Alling was murdered by a certain relative of
violence were absorbed by "rebellion," the
a woman named Muhayla who Alling and Ajibun
common crimes alleged to have been committed
attempted to abduct
in furtherance of the rebellion were specifically
charged in the information and, for that reason, were not yet entirely extinguished, and here
were consequently necessarily alleged to have and there throughout the Islands occasional
been committed for political ends. In the outbreaks still required the use of the armed
prosecution at bar, however, as pointed out by forces of the Government for their
the Solicitor General, "the information makes no suppression. A junta in the city of Hong Kong,
allegation of political motivation, and the composed of persons whose announced
purpose and object in organizing was the
evidence is totally devoid of any such motivation,
overthrow of the present Government, was
for on the contrary, the proof adduced shows
actively engaged in the endeavor to keep the
that the killing had no political or social people of these Islands from peaceably
color, but purely motivated by personal accepting the authority of that Government,
vengeance." and this junta, acting with confederates in
the Philippines, was still able to keep alive a
The crime committed is kidnapping
certain spirit of unrest and uncertainty which
complexed with murder. We find the death
it hoped to fan into open revolt and rebellion
penalty as well as the indemnity in the amount of at the first favorable opportunity.
P3,000.00 imposed in accordance with law.
The manner and form in which the drama
INCITING TO SEDITION was presented at such a time and under
such conditions, renders absurd the pretense
US v. TOLENTINO
that it was merely or even principally a
FACTS:
literary or artistic production, and the clumsy
Aurelio Tolentino, appellant, is Filipino devices, the allegorical figures, the apparent
playwright. He was charged with the remoteness, past and future, of the events
crime for uttering seditiouswords and portrayed, could not and in fact were not
writings, publishing and circulating intended to leave the audience in doubt as to
scurrilous libels against the Government its present and immediate application, nor
of the United States and the Insular should they blind this court to the true
Government of the Philippine Islands purpose and intent of the author and director
through his theatrical play entitled of the play.
Kahapon, Ngayon at Bukas
TOPIC: SEDITION
Counsel for appellant insiststhat the
drama is, in itself, a purely literary and
G.R. No. L-2990 December 17, 1951
artistic production wherein the legendary
history of these Islands and their future, OSCAR ESPUELAS Y MENDOZA, petitioner vs.
as imagined by the author, are presented PEOPLE, respondent.
merely for the instruction and
entertainment of the public. FACTS
ISSUE:
WON the petitioner is liable for inciting to Article 142 RPC punishes those who shall
write, publish or circulate scurrilous libels
sedition against the Government of the Philippines
HELD: or any of the duly constituted authorities
Yes. The manifest, unmistakable thereof or which suggest or incite rebellious
tendency of the play, in view of the time, conspiracies or riots or which tend to stir up
place, and manner of its presentation, the people against the lawful authorities or
to disturb the peace of the community.
was to inculcate a spirit of hatred and
enmity against the American people and Appellant Oscar Espuelas y Mendoza was
the Government of the United States in convicted in the CFI Bohol for violating said
the Philippines, and we are satisfied that article. Affirmed by CA.
the principal object and intent of its
author was to incite the people of the
Philippine Islands to open and armed
resistance to the constituted authorities,
and to induce them to conspire together
for the secret organization of armed
forces, to be used when the opportunity
presented itself, for the purpose of
overthrowing the present Government
and setting up another in its stead.
The public presentation of the drama took
place in the month of May, 1903, less than
two years after the establishment of the Civil
Government. The smoldering embers of a
wide-spread and dangerous insurrection
Between June 9 and June 24, 1947 in the town of In disposing of this appeal, careful thought had to
Tagbilaran, Bohol, Espuelas had his picture be given to the fundamental right to freedom
taken, making it to appear as if he were of speech. Yet the freedom of speech secured by
hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of the Constitution "does not confer an absolute
rope suspended form the limb of the tree, right to speak or publish without responsibility
when in truth and in fact, he was merely whatever one may choose." It is not "unbridled
standing on a barrel. After securing copies of license that gives immunity for every possible
his photograph, Espuelas sent copies of same to use of language and prevents the punishment of
several newspapers and weeklies of general those who abuse this freedom." So statutes
circulation, not only in the Province of Bohol but against sedition have guaranty, although they
also throughout the Philippines and abroad, for should not be interpreted so as to agitate for
their publication with a suicide note or letter, institutional changes.
wherein he made to appear that it was written by
a fictitious suicide, and he posed as Alberto The infuriating language is not a sincere effort to
Reveniera and addressed to the latter's persuade, what with the writer's simulated
supposed wife translation of which letter or note suicide and false claim to martyrdom and what
in hereunder reproduced: with is failure to particularize. When the use
irritating language centers not on persuading the
Dearest wife and children, bury me five readers but on creating disturbances, the
meters deep. Over my grave don't plant a rationable of free speech cannot apply and the
cross or put floral wreaths, for I don't need speaker or writer is removed from the protection
them.Please don't bury me in the lonely of the constitutional guaranty.Article 142
place. Bury me in the Catholic cemetery. punishes not only all libels against the
Although I have committed suicide, I still Government but also "libels against any of
have the right to buried among the duly constituted authorities thereof."
Christians.But don't pray for me. Don't The "Roxas people" in the Government obviously
remember me, and don't feel sorry. Wipe refer of least to the President, his Cabinet and the
me out of your lives.My dear wife, if majority of legislators to whom the adjectives
someone asks to you why I committed dirty, Hitlers and Mussolinis were naturally
suicide, tell them I did it because I was directed. On this score alone the conviction
not pleased with the administration could be upheld.
of Roxas. Tell the whole world about this.
And if they ask why I did not like the The essence of seditious libel may be said to its
administration of Roxas, point out to immediate tendency to stir up general
them the situation in Central Luzon, discontent to the pitch of illegal courses; that is
the Leyte.Dear wife, write to President to say to induce people to resort to illegal
Truman and Churchill. Tell them that here methods other than those provided by the
in the Philippines our government is Constitution, in order to repress the evils which
infested with many Hitlers and Mussolinis. press upon their minds.
Teach our children to burn pictures of
Roxas if and when they come across "The idea of violence prevades the whole letter"
one.I committed suicide because I am says Justice Paredes of the Court of Appeals. "The
ashamed of our government under Roxas. mere fact that a person was so disgusted with his
I cannot hold high my brows to the world "dirty government" to the point of taking his own
with this dirty government.I committed life, is not merely a sign of disillusionment; it is a
suicide because I have no power to put clear act to arouse its readers a sense of
under Juez de Cuchillo all the Roxas people dissatisfaction against its duly constituted
now in power. So, I sacrificed my own self. authorities. The mention made in said letter of
the situation in Central Luzon, the Hukbalahaps,
Accused admitted all the acts. Julio Guillen and the banditry in Leyte, which are
instances of flagrant and armed attacks against
ISSUE: WON the letter is a scurrilous libel against the law and the duly constituted authorities
the Government cannot but be interpreted by the reading public
as an indirect justification of the open defiance by
HELD the Hukbalahaps against the constituted
government, the attempt against the life of
*main ruling* Yes. The latter is a scurrilous libel President Roxas and the ruthless depredations
against the Government.It calls our government committed by the bandits of Leyte, thus
one of crooks and dishonest persons (dirty) insinuating that a state on lawlessness, rebellion
infested with Nazis and a Fascistis i.e. and anarchy would be very much better than the
dictators.And the communication reveals a maladministration of said President and his men.
tendency to produce dissatisfaction or a feeling
incompatible with the disposition to remain loyal The accused must therefore be found guilty as
to the government. Writings which tend to charged. And there being no question as to the
overthrow or undermine the security of the legality of the penalty imposed on him, the
government or to weaken the confidence of decision will be affirmed with costs.
the people in the government are against
the public peace, and are criminal not only TOPIC: Violation of parliamentary immunity
because they tend to incite to a breach of
the peace but because they are conducive [G.R. No. L-34022. March 24, 1972.]
to the destruction of the very government MANUEL MARTINEZ Y FESTIN, petitioner, vs.
itself.*main ruling* THE HONORABLE JESUS P. MORFE OF THE
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, and
THE CITY WARDEN OF MANILA, respondents. the preliminary investigation of said criminal
[G.R. Nos. L-34046-7. March 24, 1972] complaints. Thereafter on August 7, 1971, he
FERNANDO BAUTISTA, SR., petitioner, vs. issued an order for the filing of the corresponding
HON. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO, Presiding informations. Before a warrant of arrest in said
Judge, Court of First Instance of Baguio and criminal cases could be issued, petitioner in a
Benguet, Second Judicial District, Branch III, motion of August 14, 1971 invoked the privilege
et al., respondents. of immunity from arrest and search, pursuant to
Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6132, otherwise
known as the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act,
FACTS: The facts in both petitions for certiorari in relation to Sec. 15, Article VI of the Constitution
are not in dispute. Petitioner Martinez y and Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code.
Festin8 alleged that on June 10, 1971, an Respondent Judge, on the very same day, issued
information against him for falsification of a an order, holding in abeyance the issuance of a
public document was filed. Its basis was his warrant of arrest and setting the hearing of said
stating under oath in his certificate of Motion on August 23, 1971. As scheduled on
candidacy for delegate to the Constitutional August 23, 1971, there was a hearing on such
Convention that he was born on June 20, 1945, motion. Petitioner however did not prevail
when in truth and in fact he knew that he was notwithstanding his vigorous insistence on his
born on June 20, 1946. There was on July 9, claim for immunity, a warrant of arrest being
1971, a special appearance on his part ordered on the same day. On September 11,
questioning the power of respondent Judge to 1971, there was a motion to quash such order of
issue a warrant of arrest and seeking that the arrest filed by petitioner. He was unsuccessful,
information be quashed. On the same day, respondent Judge, in an order of said date,
there was an order from the lower court ordering his immediate arrest. His petition for
suspending the release of the warrant of arrest certiorari and prohibition was filed with this Court
until it could act on such motion to quash. Then on September 15, 1971. 11
came on July 22, 1971 an omnibus motion from What is thus sought by petitioners Martinez y
him, with previous leave of court, to quash the Festin and Bautista, Sr. is that the respective
information, to quash the warrant of arrest, or warrants of arrest issued against them be
to hold in abeyance further proceedings in the quashed on the claim that by virtue of the
case. It was not favorably acted on. On August parliamentary immunity they enjoy as delegates,
21, 1971, respondent Judge rendered an order ultimately traceable to Section 15 of Article VI of
denying the petitioner's omnibus motion to the Constitution as construed together with
quash. In his belief that the information and the Article 145 of the Revised Penal Code, they are
warrant of arrest in this case are, null and void, immune from arrest. In the case of petitioner
the petitioner did not post the required bond. Martinez y Festin, he is proceeded against for
He was arrested by the City Sheriff in the falsification of a public document punishable by
afternoon of September 6, 1971. At the time of prision mayor. 12 As for petitioner Bautista, Sr.,
the filing of the petition, he was confined at the the penalty that could be imposed for each of the
City Jail in the custody of respondent City Revised Election Code offense, of which he is
Warden of Manila. He was on his way to attend charged, is not higher than prision mayor. 13
the plenary session of the Constitutional ISSUE:WON petitioners are immune from arrest.
Convention. Such arrest was against his will HELD:NO.
and over his protest. He was arraigned on No other conclusion is allowable consistently with
September 9, 1971. There was at such a time a the plain and explicit command of the
motion by petitioner to reconsider the court's Constitution. As is made clear in Section 15 of
order of August 21, 1971. It was denied in open Article VI, the immunity from arrest does not
court. On the very same day, he filed the cover any prosecution for treason, felony and
petition for certiorari and habeas corpus, but breach of the peace. Treason exists when the
having been released thereafter on bail on accused levies war against the Republic or
September 11, 1971, the petition is now in the adheres to its enemies giving them aid and
nature solely of a certiorari proceeding. 9 comfort. 15 A felony is act or omission punishable
by law. 16Breach of the peace covers any offense
whether defined by the Revised Penal Code or
As for petitioner Fernando Bautista, Sr.,10 it any special statute. It is a well-settled principle in
was alleged that he is a duly elected and public law that the public peace must be
proclaimed delegate to the 1971 Constitutional maintained and any breach thereof renders one
Convention. He book his oath of office and susceptible to prosecution. Certainly then from
assumed the functions of such office on June 1, the explicit language of the Constitution, even
1971. He has continued since then to perform the without its controlling interpretation as shown by
duties and discharge the responsibilities of a the debates of the Constitutional Convention to
delegate. Two criminal complaints, docketed as be hereinafter discussed, petitioners cannot
Criminal Cases Nos. 146(57) and 148(58), were justify their claim to immunity. Nor does Article
directly filed with the Court of First Instance of 145 of the Revised Penal Code come to their
Baguio and Benguet by a certainMoises Maspil, rescue. Such a provision that took effect in 1932
a defeated delegate-aspirant who placed 15th in could not survive after the Constitution became
the order of votes garnered, against the operative on November 15, 1935. As will be
petitioner, and his co-accused for alleged shown, the repugnancy between such an
violation of Section 51 of the Revised Penal expansion of the congressional immunity and the
Code in that they gave and distributed free of plain command of the Constitution is too great to
charge food, drinks and cigarettes at two public be overcome, even on the assumption that the
meetings, one held in Sablan and the other in penalty to which a public officer will be subjected
Tuba, both towns being in the Province of in the event that he did arrest one entitled
Benguet. Respondent Presiding Judge conducted thereto for an offense punishable by less than
reclusion temporal suffices to widen its scope. First Instance of the City of Manila of a crime
This is so considering not only the history of such against the fundamental laws of the State, it
a constitutional grant of immunity but also its being alleged in the information as follows:
basic purpose and objective.
The above conclusion reached by this Court is That on or about the 30th day of May, 1931, and
bolstered and fortified by policy considerations. for some time prior thereto, the above named
There is, to be sure, a full recognition of the accused, conspiring and confederating together
necessity to have members of Congress, and and helping one another, did then and there
likewise delegates to the Constitutional willfully, unlawfully and feloniously affiliate to,
Convention, entitled to the utmost freedom to compose and become members of, the so-called
enable them to discharge their vital Communist Party of the Philippines
responsibilities, bowing to no other force except (PartidoKomunistasaPilipinas), an illegal
the dictates of their conscience. Necessarily the association, whose principal purposes and objects
utmost latitude in free speech should be are to bring about, by the use of force, the
accorded them. When it comes to freedom from downfall of the present form of government and
arrest, however, it would amount to the creation establish in place thereof another patterned after
of a privileged class, without justification in the Soviet Government of Russia and run by
reason, if notwithstanding their liability for a those affiliated to and in sympathy with said
criminal offense, they would be considered association; to incite a revolt of the laboring
immune during their attendance in Congress and class, advocating and urging struggle between
in going to and returning from the same. There is said laboring class and the so-called capitalists,
likely to be no dissent from the proposition that a and other similar objects tending to combat the
legislator or a delegate can perform his functions fundamental basis of the present social order and
efficiently and well, without the need for any alter the regularity of its functions and to the
transgression of the criminal law. Should such an commission of violations of the existing laws,
unfortunate event come to pass, he is to be which above-mentioned association was formed
treated like any other citizen considering that and organized without the local authorities
there is a strong public interest in seeing to it that having been informed of its aforesaid objects and
crime should not go unpunished. To the fear that purposes as well as of the by-laws thereof; and
may be expressed that the prosecuting arm of that at the time and place hereinabove
the government might unjustly go after mentioned, in the furtherance of their conspiracy
legislators belonging to the minority, it suffices to and in utter disregard of the notice or warning
answer that precisely all the safeguards thrown given by the authorities that they could not hold
around an accused by the Constitution, solicitous any meeting anywhere, the said accused
of the rights of an individual, would constitute an assembled, gathered and congregated under the
obstacle to such an attempt at abuse of power. name and auspices of
The presumption of course is that the judiciary the KatipunanngmgaAnakpawissaPilipinas (Associ
would remain independent. It is trite to say that ation of the Sons of the Sweat of the Philippine
in each and every manifestation of judicial Islands), another association having the same
endeavor, such a virtue is of the essence. illegal aims and purposes as the said Communist
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and Party of the Philippines, at El Retono Building, in
habeas corpus by Delegate Manuel Martinez by said City of Manila."
Festin in L-34022 and the petitions for certiorari
and prohibition by Delegate Fernando Bautista, After trial the court below convicted the said
Sr. in L-34046 accused, with the exception of Norberto Nabong,
Sixto Estrada, Augusto David, DoroteoCahumban,
Jose Ilagan, LiboroNatividad, and Mateo del
TOPIC: Illegal Association Castillo, who were acquitted.

[2 pages langyung full text di konabinawasan] Thereafter the convicted accused appealed to
this court.
G.R. No. L-36278 October 26, 1932
The accused were charged with the crime of
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE illegal association in the Court of First Instance of
ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, the City of Manila in that on or about the 30th
vs. day of May, 1931, and for some time prior
CRISANTO EVANGELISTA, ET AL., defendants- thereto, the said accused affiliated to, and
appellants. became members of, the so-called Communist
Party of the Philippines whose principal purposes
OSTRAND, J.: and object were to bring about by force the
downfall of the present form of government and
establish in its place another patterned after the
FACTS:Crisanto Evangelista, Jacinto G. Manahan, Soviet Government of Russia, and to incite a
Guillermo Capadocia, Mariano P. Balgos, Enrique revolt of the laboring class.
Torrente, UrbanoArcega, CatalinoMonroy,
Francisco Rafael, SoteroSenson, RemigioTolentino,
Dominador B. Reyes, Emilio S. Juan, Alberto After the trial the court below convicted the said
Santos, Juan Lagman, Andres Santiago, Angel accused, with the exception of Norberto Nabong,
Mesina, Felipe Cruz, Maximo M. Gutierrez, Sixto Estrada, Augusto David, DoroteoCahumban,
Dominador J. Ambrosio, CenonLacanienta, Mateo Jose Ilagan, LiboroNatividad, and Mateo del
del Castillo, Norberto Nabong, Sixto Estrada, Castillo, who were acquitted.
Augusto David, DoroteoCahumban, Jose Ilagan,
and LiboroNatividad were accused in the Court of
It appears that the appellants, Evangelista, petitioner-appellant are guilty of Illegal
Manahan, Capadocia, Torrente, Arcega, Monroy, Association punished in the RPC
Rafael, Senson, Tolentino, Reyes, San Juan,
Santos, Lagman, Santiago, Mesina, Cruz, HELD: YES. Under the law of the Philippine
Gutierrez, and Ambrosio, presented themselves Islands, the association formed by the appellants
as candidates of the Communist Party for is clearly illegal. Article 188 of the Penal Code, as
different offices insular, provincial and substituted by article 24 of the Royal Decree of
municipal in the last elections; that the September 12, 1897 (Alcubilla, Diccionario de
accused Mariano P. Balgos, CenonLacanienta and Administracion, Apendice de 1897, p. 454), says
some of those who campaigned for their that illegal associations are those the object of
candidacies as members of the Communist Party, which is against public morals, to commit some
delivered speeches at several meetings of the crime, or to attack the fundamental basis of the
Communist Party, advocating the ideas and social order or alter the regularity of its functions.
principles of the said Communist Party and urging Now, according to appellant Crisanto Evangelista
the laborers to join it. and the constitution and by-laws of the
Communist Party of the Philippines, the purpose
It also appears that the appellant Enrique of the party is to incite class struggle and to
Torrente appears in the newspaper known overthrow the present government by peaceful
as Titis, an organ of the Communist Party, as the means or by armed revolution; therefore the
editor thereof. purpose of the party is to alter the social order
and to commit the crimes of rebellion and
The appellants have not denied being members sedition. An association having such an object
of the Communist Party of the Philippines; on the must necessarily be illegal (decision of Oct. 8,
contrary, Crisanto Evangelista admitted expressly 1884, of the Supreme Court of Spain, 7
at the trial that he was affiliated to the said party. Hidalgo, Cod. Pen., 531-532.) The report
As witness for the defense, he testified that the submitted by Secretary Hughes to the Senate of
objects and purposes of the Communist Party of the United States, as well as that made by
the Philippines are set out in its constitution and Hamilton Fish, after an investigation of
by-laws which purposes and objects, according to communism, leads to the same conclusion,
said constitution and by-laws, are to overthrow namely, that force and violence are
the present form of government by any means inseparable from communist programs.
necessary, especially armed
revolution.1awphil.net The last point made by the appellants is relative
to the penalty imposed. The trial court imposed
The appellant, CatalinoMonroy, admitted having the penalty of confinamiento for the period of
gone to Russia as delegate of eight years and one day, as provided by
the KapisanannangmgaAnakpawis to the Red paragraph 5, article 190 of the old Penal Code, as
International Labor Union Congress. substituted by article 26 of the Royal Decree of
September 12, 1897, in connection with articles
From the foregoing it is clear that the twenty 28 and 114 of the same Code. The appellants
appellants herein are or were members of the contend that this is erroneous because the
Communist Party of the Philippines, for all of Revised Penal Code has eliminated this kind of
them, with the exception of Balgos and penalty. But there is no merit in this argument,
Lacanienta, presented themselves as candidates because the act took place under the sanction of
in the last general elections as communists, and the old Code, and the penalty of confinamiento,
said Balgos and Lacanienta, as well as many of therein provided for, is lighter than that provided
those mentioned, delivered speeches at several by the new Code in its article 147, which is
meetings held under the auspices of the said prisioncorreccional and arresto mayor and fine.
Communist Party, advocating communism and
urging the laborers to affiliate to the said party. If The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the
any one of these appellants were not a member costs against the twenty defendants. So ordered.
of the Communist Party, it would have been very
easy for him to deny it, but no one has so done. PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND AGENTS OF
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY
The principal defense set up by the appellants is
that the Communist Party of the Philippines is not THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
an illegal association in that it preaches only a appellee, vs. FLORO RODIL, defendant-
social but not an armed revolution, but a mere appellant.
reading of the constitution of the Communist
Party will show that such a pretense is obviously FACTS:
useless. Neither is there any merit in the
appellant's argument that communism is not Accused Floro Rodil was found guilty, beyond
prohibited in any part of the civilized world. And reasonable doubt, of the crime of murder by the
as to the validity of the law prohibiting Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal, for the death
communism, the Supreme Court of the United of Lt. Guillermo Masana of the Philippine
States upheld the law of California prohibiting the
display of the communist red flag as a sign Constabulary.
inciting sedition and disorderly opposition to the
government. At about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 24,
1971, the deceased, PC Lt. Guillermo Masana,
ISSUE: WON Communist Party of the Philippines together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Philippine
is an illegal association and therefore the Coast Guard serviceman Ricardo Ligsa, and
Patrolman Felix Mojica of Indang, Cavite, was HELD:
having lunch inside a restaurant in front of the
Indang market. While they were eating, they saw, NO. The COURT can only conclude that the
through the glass panel of the restaurant, assailant and the victim were indeed face to face
appellant outside the restaurant blowing his when the stabbing took place. As such the attack
whistle. Their attention having been drawn to was not treacherous because the victim was able
what appellant was doing, Lt. Masana, then in to ward off the same with his hand. As a matter of
civilian clothing, accompanied by PC soldier fact, the force he used in warding off the attack
Virgilio Fidel, went out of the restaurant, was so strong that the accused bumped his head
approached appellant and asked the latter, after on a table nearby, causing injuries to him which
identifying himself as a PC officer, whether the necessitated medical treatment. In short, the
gun that was tucked in his waist had a license. attack on the victim was made on the spur of the
Instead of answering the question of Lt. Masana, moment. The suddenness of the attack does not
appellant moved one step backward and by itself suffice to support a finding of treachery.
attempted to draw his gun. PC soldier Virgilio Besides, the record failed to show that the
Fidel immediately grabbed appellant's gun from accused made any preparation to kill his victim
appellant's waist and gave it to Lt. Masana. After so as to insure the commission of the crime,
that, Lt. Masana told the appellant to go inside making it at the same time impossible or hard for
the restaurant. PC soldier Virgilio Fidel followed. the victim to defend himself or retaliate.
Lt. Masana and the appellant occupied a separate
table about one and one-half (1 1/2 ) meters from While the evidence definitely demonstrated that
the table of Lt. Masana's three companions appellant knew because the victim, who was in
Fidel, Ligsa and Mojica. After the two were already civilian clothing, told him that he was an agent of
seated, Lt. Masana placed appellant's gun on the a person in authority, he cannot be convicted
table. After that Lt. Masana pulled out a piece of of the complex crime of homicide with
coupon bond paper from his pocket and wrote assault upon an agent of a person in
thereon the receipt for the gun, and after signing authority, for the simple reason that the
it, he asked appellant to countersign the same, information does not allege the fact that
but appellant refused to do so. Instead, he asked the accused then knew that, before or at
Lt. Masana to return the gun to him. Lt. Masana the time of the assault, the victim was an
rejected appellant's plea, telling the latter that agent of a person in authority. The
they would talk the matter over in the municipal information simply alleges that appellant did
building of Indang, Cavite. When Lt. Masana was "attack and stab PC Lt. Guillermo Masana while
about to stand up, appellant suddenly pulled out the latter was in the performance of his official
a double-bladed dagger and with it he stabbed Lt. duties, . . ." Such an allegation cannot be an
Masana several times, on the chest and stomach adequate substitute for the essential averment to
causing his death several hours thereafter. justify a conviction of the complex crime, which
necessarily requires the imposition of the
The accused claimed it was an act of self- maximum period of the penalty prescribed for the
defense. According to him Lt. Masana told him graver offense. Like a qualifying circumstance,
that the latter's ID was fake, and after the such knowledge must be expressly and
accused insisted that it was genuine, Lt. Masana specifically averred in the information; otherwise,
tried to take it away from the accused when the in the absence of such allegation, the required
latter was about to put it back in his pocket. knowledge, like a qualifying circumstance,
Because of his refusal to give his ID card to Lt. although proven, would only be appreciated as a
Masana, the latter got mad and, in an angry tone generic aggravating circumstance. Applying this
of voice, demanded: "Will you give it to me or principle, the attack on the victim, who was
not?" Still the accused refused to surrender his ID known to the appellant as a peace officer, could
to Lt. Masana. Thereupon, the latter pulled a gun be considered only as aggravating, being "in
from his waist and hit the accused on the head contempt of/or with insult to the public
with its handle two (2) times. Immediately, blood authorities" (Par. [2], Art. XIV of the Revised Penal
gushed from his head and face. When Lt. Masana Code), or as an "insult or in disregard of the
was about to hit the accused for the third time, respect due the offended party on account of his
the latter parried the right hand of the officer, rank, . . ."
pulled his "pangsaksak" and stabbed the officer
two or three times and then pushed him away It is essential that the accused must have
from him and ran out of the restaurant. knowledge that the person attacked was a
person in authority or his agent in the
ISSUES: WON the crime of murder or homicide exercise of his duties, because the accused
complexed with assault upon an agent of must have the intention to offend, injure, or
authority? assault the offended party as a person in
authority or agent of a person in authority.
Escano, in the amount to be proved during the
If the accused herein were charged with the trial of the case.
complex crime of murder with assault against an
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of
agent of a person in authority, and not merely Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation
murder, then the aggravating circumstance of to Section 17 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 179, with
disregard of rank or contempt of or insult to the qualifying aggravating circumstances of
public authority cannot be appreciated as evident premeditation, treachery and acting
aggravating because either circumstance is under the influence of dangerous drugs and
cruelty.
inherent in the charge of assault against a person
in authority or an agent of a person in authority. The two (2) criminal cases were consolidated
But in the case at bar, the appellant is accused of upon motion of the prosecution and tried jointly.
murder only. Consequently, either aggravating
circumstance should be considered in the WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises
considered, decision is hereby rendered in
imposition of the penalty. Criminal Case No. 4007 finding the accused
Renato Tac-an y Hipos GUILTY beyond reasonable
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, doubt of Illegal Possession of Firearms and
vs. RENATO TAC-AN Y HIPOS, accused-appellant. Ammunitions qualified with Murder
G.R. No. 76338-39 February 26, 1990
Immediately after promulgation of the decision,
Accused Renato Tac-an appeals from the decision appellant signified his intention to appeal to this
of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, Court.
convicting him of qualified illegal possession of a
firearm and ammunition and of murder. Appellant Renato Tac-an, then eighteen (18)
years and seven (7) months of age, and the
On 18 December 1984, appellant was charged deceased Francis Ernest Escano III, fifteen (15)
with violation of Section 1, paragraph (2), of years old, were classmates in the third year of
Presidential Decree No. 1866, committed as high school of the Divine Word College in
follows: Tagbilaran City. They were close friends, being not
only classmates but also members of the same
That, on or about the 14th day of December gang, the Bronx gang. Renato had been to the
1984, in the City of Tagbilaran Philippines, and house where Francis and his parents lived, on one
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the or two occasions. On those occasions, Francis'
above-named accused, while acting under the mother noticed that Renato had a handgun with
influence of drugs and without any license or him. Francis was then advised by his mother to
permit from the proper authorities, did then and distance himself from Renato.
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have ill
his possession, custody and control an unlicensed Francis withdrew from the Bronx gang. The
firearm, a SMITH & WESSON Airweight caliber .38 relationship between Renato and Francis turned
revolver with Serial Number 359323 with Five (5) sour. Sometime in September 1984, Renato and
spent shells and Five (5) live ammunitions and Francis quarrelled with each other, on which
without any justifiable cause and with intent to occasion Francis bodily lifted Arnold Romelde
kill, used the said firearm and ammunitions to from the ground. Arnold was friend and
shoot one Francis Ernest Escano III hitting and companion to Renato. The quarrel resulted in
inflicting upon the latter the following gunshot Renato and Francis being brought to the high
wounds or injurieswhich gunshot wounds or school principal's office. The strained relationship
injuries directly caused his death, to the damage between the two (2) erstwhile friends was
and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines. aggravated in late November 1984 when Francis
teamed that Renato, together with other
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of members of the Bronx gang, was looking for him,
Section 1, paragraph 2 of the Presidential Decree apparently with the intention of beating him up.
No. 1866. 1 Further deterioration of their relationship
occurred sometime in the first week of December
On 11 January 1985, an amended information 2 1984, when graffiti appeared on the wall of the
for murder was also filed against appellant third year high school classroom and on the
reading as follows: armrest of a chair in that classroom, deprecating
the Bronx gang and describing Renato as "bayot"
That, on or about the 14th day of December, (homosexual) 5 Renato attributed the graffiti to
1984 in the City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, with Francis.
intent to kill, evident pre-meditation treachery,
while acting under the influence of drugs, with At about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 14
cruelty and deliberately augmenting the suffering December 1984, Renato entered Room 15 of the
of the victim, did then and there willfully, high school building to attend his English III class.
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and Renato placed his scrapbook prepared for their
shot one Francis Ernest Escano with the use of an Mathematics class on his chair, and approached
unlicensed SMITH & WESSON Airweight caliber . the teacher, Mrs. Liliosa Baluma, to raise a
38 revolver with Serial Number 359323 hitting question. Upon returning to his chair, he found
and inflicting upon the latter the following Francis sitting there, on the scrapbook. Renato
gunshot wounds or injurieswhich gunshot wounds was angered by what he saw and promptly kicked
or injuries directly caused his death, to the the chair on which Francis was seated. Francis,
damage and prejudice of the heirs of the however, explained that he had not intentionally
deceased namely: Judge & Mrs. Francisco Rey H. sat down on Renato's scrapbook. A fistfight would
have ensued but some classmates and two (2) could not open the door which Renato had locked
teachers, Mrs. Baluma and Mr. Damaso Pasilbas, behind him. One of the students entered the
intervened and prevented them from assaulting room by climbing up the second floor on the
each other. After the two (2) had quieted down outside and through the window and opened the
and apparently shaken hands at the instance of door from the inside.
Mrs. Baluma, the latter resumed her English III
class. Francis sat on the last row to the extreme Issue: WON THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED IN
right of the teacher while Renato was seated on CONTEMPT OF OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC
the same last row at the extreme left of the AUTHORITIES
teacher. While the English III class was still going
on, Renato slipped out of the classroom and went RULING:
home to get a gun.
No. Under Republic Act 1978, as amended, a
The Mathematics class under Mr. Damaso teacher of a public or private school is considered
Pasilbas scheduled for 3:00 p.m. had just started a person in authority. The fact that Mr. Damaso
in Room 15 when Renato suddenly burst into the Pasilbas, the teacher in mathematics, was already
room, shut the door and with both hands raised, checking the attendance did not deter the
holding a revolver, shouted "Where is Francis?" accused from pursuing his evil act, The accused
Upon sighting Francis seated behind and to the ignored his teacher's presence and pleas. Not yet
light of student Ruel Ungab, Renato fired at satisfied with the crime and terror he had done to
Francis, hitting a notebook, a geometry book and Francis and the entire school, the accused
the armrest of Ruel's chair. Francis and Ruel entered the faculty room and held hostage the
jumped up and with several of their classmates teachers and students who were inside that room.
rushed forward towards the teacher's platform to To the court, this act of the accused was an insult
seek protection from their teacher. Renato fired a to his teachers and to the school, an act of callus
second time, this time hitting the blackboard in disregard of other's feelings and safety and
front of the class. Francis and the other students completely reprehensible.
rushed back towards the rear of the room. Renato
walked towards the center of the classroom and We believe the trial court erred in so finding the
fired a third time at Francis, hitting the concrete presence of a generic aggravating circumstance.
wall of the classroom. Francis and a number of his Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as
classmates rushed towards the door, the only amended by Republic Act No. 1978 and
door to and from Room 15. Renato proceeded to Presidential Decree No. 299, provides as follows:
the teacher, s platform nearest the door and for
the fourth time fired at Francis as the latter was Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of
rushing towards the door. This time, Francis was persons in authority. Who shall be deemed as
hit on the head and he fell on the back of Ruel such. In applying the provisions of the
and both fell to the floor. Ruel was pulled out of preceding and other articles of this Code, any
the room by a friend; Francis remained sprawled person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether
on the floor bleeding profusely. 7 as an individual or as a member of some court or
government corporation, board, or commission,
A teacher, Mr. Pablo Baluma, apparently unaware shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio
that it was Renato who had gunned down Francis, captain and a barangaychairman shall also be
approached Renato and asked him to help Francis deemed a person in authority.
as the latter was still alive inside the room.
Renato thereupon re-entered Room 15, closed the A person who by direct provision of law or by
door behind him, saying: "So, he is still alive. election or by appointment by competent
Where is his chest?" Standing over Francis authority, is charged with the maintenance of
sprawled face down on the classroom floor, public order and the protection and security of
Renato aimed at the chest of Francis and fired life and property, such as a barrio councilman,
once more. barrio policeman and barangay leader and any
person who comes to the aid of persons in
Renato proceeded to the ground floor and authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person
entered the faculty room. There, he found some in authority.
teachers and students and ordered them to lock
the door and close the windows, in effect holding In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151
them as hostages.After some time, a team of of this Code, teachers, professors and persons
Philippine Constabulary troopers led by Capt. charged with the supervision of public or duly
Larino Lazo arrived and surrounded the faculty recognized private schools, colleges and
room. With a hand-held public address device, universities, and lawyers in the actual
Capt. Lazo called upon Renato to surrender performance of their professional duties or on the
himself Renato did not respond to this call. occasion of such performance, shall be deemed
Renato's brother approached Capt. Lazo and persons in authority. (As amended by P.D. No.
volunteered to persuade his brother to give up. 299, September 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa
Renato's father who, by this time had also Blg. 873, June 12, 1985).
arrived, pleaded with Renato to surrender himself
Renato then turned over his gun to his brother A person who by direct provision of law or by
through an opening in the balustrade of the election or by appointment by competent
faculty room. Capt. Lazo took the gun from authority, is charged with the maintenance of
Renato's brother, went to the door of the faculty public order and the protection and security of
room, entered and placed Renato under arrest. life and property, such as a barrio councilman,
barrio policeman and barangay leader and any
Meantime, as soon as Renato left Room 15, some person who comes to the aid of persons in
teachers and students came to rescue Francis but
authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person Patrolman Rolando Tolentino also suffered
in authority. injuries. When the firing had stopped, they
decided to bring Vicente to the hospital. As the
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 jeep left the compound three (3) men came out of
of this Code, teachers, professors and persons the Puzon Compound and fired at the fleeing
charged with the supervision of public or duly vehicle. They were Cresencio Siazon, Ceferino
recognized private schools, colleges and Beltran and Noling Puzon. Likewise, Domingo
universities, and lawyers in the actual Hernandez and Minong Beltran and Boy Bugarin
performance of their professional duties or on the tried to give chase. After a while, all the six men
occasion of such performance, shall be deemed returned inside the compound. An hour after
persons in authority. (As amended by P.D. No. admission to the hospital Vicente Quirolgico died.
299, September 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa The defense had a different version (basahin niyo
Blg. 873, June 12, 1985). na lang). The defense of appellant Delfino
Beltran, alias Minong, is self- defense; whereas
PS: Hindi ko na sinali yung other claims ng appellants Rogelio Bugarin, alias Boy, Ceferino
appellant like self-defense, claim of double Beltran, alias Ebing, and Manuel Puzon, alias
jeopardy, claim that there was no treachery, Noling denied having anything to do with the
claim that there was no evident premeditation, incident.
claim that killing was not done under influence of
drugs and claim that he voluntarily surrendered
kasi hindi naman siya connected sa issue.
Besides, nabasa na din natin to sa Crim 1, so go ISSUE: WON appellants are guilty of attempted
figure. murder with direct assault on Mayor Quirolgico
and Pat. Rolando Tolentino
Topic: Direct Assault
G.R. Nos. L-37168-69 September 13, 1985

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- Held: Yes, considering that Mayor Quirolgico is a
appellee, person in authority and Pat. Rolando Tolentino is a
vs. policeman who at the time was in his uniform,
DELFINO BELTRAN, alias Minong, DOMINGO and both were performing their official duties to
HERNANDEZ, alias Doming; CEFERINO maintain peace and order in the community, the
BELTRAN, alias Ebing; MANUEL PUZON alias finding of the trial court that appellants are guilty
Noling; CRESENCIO SIAZON, alias Ising; and of attempted murder with direct assault on the
ROGELIO BUGARIN, alias Boy, accused- persons of Mayor Quirolgico and Pat. Tolentino is
appellants. correct.

Accused-appellants Delfino Beltran, alias Minong; DIRECT ASSAULT


Rogelio Bugarin, alias Boy; Cresencio Siazon, alias
Ising; Manuel Puzon, alias Noling; Domingo G.R. No. 138553 June 30, 2005
Hernandez, alias Doming; and, Ceferino Beltran, ENRIQUE "TOTOY" RIVERA Y DE GUZMAN, vs.
alias Ebing, were indicted for murder and double
attempted murder with direct assault in the then PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Court of First Instance of Cagayan, docketed as FACTS:
Criminal Case No. 158- S. Likewise, Delfino
Beltran was charged with attempted murder in On March 20, 1993 at around 8:00 oclock in the
Criminal Case No. 160-S. evening, Police Inspector Edward M. Leygo,
vening of January 11, 1972, between 9:00 and Deputy Chief of Police for Operation and Patrol of
10:00, in Ballesteros, Cagayan, Ernesto Alvarado the La Trinidad Police Station, La Trinidad,
was bringing Calixto Urbi home in a jeep. Passing Benguet and SPO1 Joseph Basquial were
by the Puzon Compound, Delfino Beltran alias conducting routinary patrol on board a police car
Minong, shouted at them, "Oki ni inayo" (Vulva of somewhere when they came upon a truck
your mother). They proceeded on their way and
ignored Delfino. After Alvarado had brought Urbi unloading sacks of chicken dung at the stall of
to his house he went to the house of Mayor accused Enrique "Totoy" Rivera which was located
Bienvenido Quirolgico and reported the matter. along the Halsema Highway. Inspector Leygo
The newly elected Mayor told the Chief of Police advised the driver to stop unloading the manure
that something should be done about it. as it violates La Trinidad Municipal
Ordinance No. I-91 (Exhibit "C") which
They decided to go to the Puzon Compound with
prohibits, among others, the loading and
the intention to talk to Delfino Beltran and his
companions to surrender considering that he unloading of chicken manure along the
knew them personally as all of them were once sidewalks or road shoulders or within 15
working for Congressman David Puzon When they meters from the center of the Halsema
came near the compound, they saw appellants Highway located at La Trinidad, Benguet.
Delfino Beltran, Rogelio Bugarin and Domingo
The driver complied with the police directive. The
Hernandez and suddenly there was a
simultaneous discharge of gunfire, The mayor's policemen then escorted the truck back to
son, Vicente, who was with them, cried: " I am Poblacion, La Trinidad, Benguet and proceeded to
already hit, Daddy." As he fell, Vicente pushed his the police headquarters.
father and both fell down. Mayor Quirolgico and
Not long after, SPOI Jose Bangcado and SPOI that he was being arrested. The accused
Rivera Dayap, members of the La Trinidad Police responded by punching Inspector Leygo on
under Inspector Leygo were conducting patrol his face, particularly on his lip. The two then
aboard a police car somewhere at Km. 6, La grappled as Inspector Leygo tried to hold the
Trinidad, Benguet when they observed a truck accused. Finally, with the help of Policemen
loaded with chicken dung proceeding towards Dayap and Bongcado, the accused was subdued.
Shilan, La Trinidad, Benguet. Having in mind the The accused was then pushed into one of the
instructions of La Trinidad Mayor and their police cars but he resisted until Alfredo Castro,
Commanding Officer Inspector Leygo to one of the chicken dung dealers in the area,
Implement Ordinance No. I-91, the two policemen boarded the police car to accompany him.
followed and stopped the truck at Cruz, La
The accused was brought to the police
Trinidad, Benguet. Immediately they called
headquarters where Inspector Leygo immediately
Inspector Leygo on the radio and informed him
called Mayor Tabanda who arrived at about 10:00
that they stopped a truck carrying chicken dung.
oclock that same evening.
Inspector Leygo ordered them to restrain the
truck, as he would be proceeding to the area. Reproduced from the same decision of the

Knowing that the truck being restrained by the appellate court, the defenses version5 runs:
two policemen was the same truck which they
-that they thought the policemen were there to
had escorted earlier, Inspector Leygo felt ignored
extort money
and insulted. He immediately called SPO4 Justino
Tiwtiwa, SPO1 Baldwin Ngolab and SPO1 Joseph -that Insp Leygo alighted from one of the police
Basquial and the group sped to Cruz, La Trinidad, vehicles and angrily uttered so many words at the
Benguet. accused. The policeman then held the collar of
accuseds jacket and forced the latter to get out
Meanwhile, back at Cruz, La Trinidad, Benguet,
of his vehicle while shouting "Ang tigas ng ulo
the accused arrived before the group of Inspector
mo. Sige, bumunot ka." (You are very stubborn.
Leygo did and ordered the driver not to obey the
Go ahead, draw your gun.) The accused
policemen but instead obey him, as he (accused)
explained that he had no gun to draw while
was the boss. The truck driver followed the
removing his jacket and raising his hands to show
accuseds order and drove the truck towards
that there was no gun on his body. Inspector
Shilan, La Trinidad, Benguet with the accused
Leygo then held the left hand of the accused and
following closely behind in his vehicle. Inspector
tried to put handcuffs on him. The accused tried
Leygo and his group arrived in time to see the
to resist, pleading that he had no fault and at the
truck pulling away and so they gave chase. The
same time asking what infraction of law he
police were able to overtake and stop the truck at
committed. Inspector Leygo answered by uttering
Dengsi, Tomay, La Trinidad, Benguet. Inspector
insulting words and pointing his left forefinger on
Leygo confronted the truck driver and asked him
the accuseds face while his right hand was
why he still insisted on proceeding to Shilan to
poking a gun on the accused. The accused
unload chicken manure despite the fact that he
noticed that the policeman smelled of liquor.
was ordered to go back earlier in the evening.
The truck driver stated that he was just following The accused decided to get his camera inside the
the orders of the accused. Immediately, Inspector truck. As he was opening the door, Inspector
Leygo turned around to see the accused who had Leygo suddenly slapped and boxed him in the
at that time alighted from his vehicle behind the stomach causing the accused to feel dizzy. This
truck. Inspector Leygo asked the accused why he assault weakened him and so he did not resist
insisted on defying the ban on the unloading and when the police pushed him inside the police
loading of chicken manure. Instead of vehicle. Inspector Leygo then ordered his men to
answering however, the accused pointed a bring the accused to the police headquarters.
finger on the policeman and uttered words
ISSUE: WON CA erred in affirming the judgment of
like "Babalian kita ng buto" (Ill break your
conviction of RTC for crime of direct assault.
bones). "Ilalampaso kita" (Ill scrub you).
"Pulis lang kayo" (you are only policemen) RULING:
and other unsavory and insulting words.
Direct assault, a crime against public order, may
Inspector Leygo who was a little bit angry warned
be committed in two ways: first, by any person or
the accused to stop uttering further insulting
persons who, without a public uprising, shall
words and cautioned him to take it easy and then
employ force or intimidation for the attainment of
informed him that he was being arrested for
any of the purposes enumerated in defining the
violation of the chicken dung ordinance. The
crimes of rebellion and sedition; and second, by
accused removed his jacket, placed it inside the
any person or persons who, without a public
vehicle, assumed a fighting stance and
uprising, shall attack, employ force, or seriously
challenged the policeman. Inspector Leygo then
intimidate or resist any person in authority or any
approached the accused and warned him anew
of his agents, while engaged in the performance his back but survived. Orbe was shot by
of official duties, or on occasion of such the left elbow.
performance.9
ISSUE:
Unquestionably, petitioners case falls under the WON appellant is liable for direct assault.
second mode, which is the more common form of
assault and is aggravated when: (a) the assault is HELD:
committed with a weapon; or (b) when the Yes for Orbe, Macalipay, and Santos. No
offender is a public officer or employee; or (c) for Recto.
when the offender lays hand upon a person in For attacking Orbe, it is qualified direct
authority.10 assault with attempted homicide. For the
slay of Macalipay and Santos, qualified
ON QUESTION OF LEYGO NOT IN THE direct assault with homicide.
PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES: It is a matter of record Direct assault is a crime against public
that at the time of the assault, Lt. Leygo was order, may be committed in two ways:
engaged in the actual performance of his official first, by any person or persons who,
duties. He was wearing the designated police without a public uprising, shall employ
uniform and was on board a police car conducting force or intimidation for the attainment of
a routinary patrol when he first came upon the any of the purposes enumerated in
truck unloading chicken manure. defining the crimes of rebellion and
DIRECT ASSAULT sedition; second, by any person or
PEOPLE v RECTO persons who, without public uprising
FACTS: shall attack, employ force, or seriously
Brgy Captain Percival Orbe, intimidate or resist any person in
BrgyKagawadAntonio Macalipay and authority or any of his agents, while
BrgyTanodMelchor Recto were settling a engaged in the performance of official
land dispute between Linda Rance and duties, or on occasion of such
Cornelio Regis Jr when SPO4 Rafol performance.
requested Orbe to proceed on the All of the victims are public officials:
bodega of Rance. Orbe went to the public authorities and agents thereof.
bodega with Macalipay and They are in the performance of their
BrgyKagawadEmiliano Santos. Upon public duties except for Melchor Recto.
reaching the bodega, they noticed that Tanod Recto was not in his official duty.
the padlock was broken and the bodega He was merely passing by when he
was ransacked.Tanod Recto passed by approached Orbe. Orbes request was not
and inquired about the incident. Orbe an order, in was a mere request if and
requested him to stand by in case his only if his help will be needed.
help might be needed,
When the police officers left to report the TOPIC: DIRECT ASSAULT
incident to the Rances. The group of the
appellant arrived, together with Cornelio [G.R. Nos. 136149-51. September 19, 2000]
Regis Jr and some of his relatives. Orbe
instructed them to not create any PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.
trouble. But one of the Regis threw a WALPAN LADJAALAM y MIHAJIL alias
piece of wood at them. After being WARPAN, appellant.
warned, Julio Recto, the appellant, drew
FACTS
his homemade shotgun. Orbe and
Santos took cover, tanod Recto went Walpan Ladjaalam y Mihajil, also known as
inside the bodega, while Macalipay with Warpan, was 30yrs old, married, and described
arms up in the air , asked them to settle his occupation as smuggling. was found guilty of
things properly. But he was shot by the three out of the four charges against him by
appellant and was hacked by one of his Zamboanga RTC. The first to fourth info filed
against him are as follows:
companions. Tanod Recto and Orbe hid
inside the dilapidated restroom of the 1. Ladjaalam, the owner of a residential
bodega. Santos tried to defend himself house located at Zamboanga, conspired
with his revolver. Appellant was able to with his co-accused wife and a friendand
shoot him, causing him to fall and was maintained the house as a den, where
regulated drugs were used in any form.
hacked also with a bolo. Orbe and Tanod
Recto were able to escape through the
2. They also had in their possession MANY
window of the restroom. Appellant fired weapons (armalite rifles, ammo,
at them. Tanod sustained shot wounds at
revolvers, other guns, grenade) without ISSUE: Whether or not accused is guilty of Direct
license or permits Assault (read the full text na lang for other non-
related issues if interested)
3. [For multiple attempted murder with
direct assault] Fully armed, Ladjaalam HELD:
and company attempted to kill 4 police
officers who were agents of a person in The trial court deemed appellants arrest as valid.
authority, and were engaged in the The policemen had authority to pursue and
performance of their duties. They were arrest Walpan Ladjaalam and confiscate the
about to serve the Search Warrant firearm he used in shooting at the policemen
legally issued by the RTC. The accused did and to enter his house to effect said arrest and
not accomplish their unlawful purpose of confiscation of the firearm. Under Rule 113,
killing the officers not by reason of their Section 5 (a), of the Rules of Court, A peace
own voluntary desistance but rather officer or a private person may, without a
because of the fact that all the police warrant, arrest a person xxx (w)hen in his
officers were able to seek cover during the presence, the person to be arrested has
firing and were not hit by the bullets and committed, is actually committing, or is
explosives fired by the accused and also attempting to commit an offense. At the time
by the fact said police officers were able to the policemen entered the house of accused after
wrestle with 2 of the accusedwho were he had fired shots at the policemen who intended
subdued and subsequently placed under to serve the Search Warrant to him, the accused
arrest. was engaged in the commission of a crime,
and was pursued and arrested after he
4. Appellant was charged with illegal committed the crime of shooting at the
possession of drugs. policemen.As a consequence of the legal arrest,
the seizure of the following was also deemed
Ladjaalam was found GUILTY of: valid: the rifles used to fire at the police. RTC
observed that these items were in plain view of
1. Section 15-A, Article III, of Republic Act No. the pursuing police officers.
6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972 The trial court was correct in convicting
appellant of direct assaultwith multiple
2. Illegal Possession of Firearm and counts of attempted homicide. It found that
Ammunition penalized under Presidential the act of the accused of firing an M14 rifle at the
Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic policemen who were about to enter his house to
Act. No. 8294 serve a search warrant constituted such complex
crime. We note that direct assault with the use of
a weapon carries the penalty of prision
3. Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted correccional in its medium and maximum periods,
Homicide while attempted homicide carries the penalty of
prision correccional. Hence, for the present
A search warrant was issued against complex crime, the penalty for direct assault,
appellant, his wife, and other John Does. More which constitutes the most serious crime, should
than 30 policemen proceeded to the house of be imposed and applied in its maximum period.
appellant and his wife at Rio Hondo on board
several police vehicles. Before they could reach Republic Act No. 8294 penalizes simple
appellants house, 3 persons sitting at a nearby illegal possession of firearms, provided that
store ran towards the house shouting, Police, the person arrested committed no other
raid, raid! The policemen were met by a rapid crime. Furthermore, if the person is held liable
burst of gunfire coming from the second floor and for murder or homicide, illegal possession of
back of the house. A group of policemen sought firearms is an aggravating circumstance, but not
cover at the concrete fence to observe the a separate offense. Hence, where an accused was
movements at the second floor of the house while convicted of direct assault with multiple
other policemen surrounded the house. The attempted homicide for firing an unlicensed M-14
policemen were able to enter and surround the rifle at several policemen who were about to
house while appellant and company was still serve a search warrant, he cannot be held
firing at them. Appellant saw them and jumped to guilty of the separate offense of illegal
the roof of a neighbour but was arrested at the possession of firearms. Neither can such
back of his house after a brief chase. unlawful act be considered to have aggravated
the direct assault.
After announcing the search warrant (there were
witnesses and sumunod naman sa proper and WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby
legal process), they found numerous guns and a AFFIRMEDwith the MODIFICATIONthat appellant is
pencil case containing methamphetamine found guilty only of two offenses: (1) direct
hydrochloride or shabu. Upon arrest, appellant assault and multiple attempted homicide with the
was tested to be positive for gunpowder and use of a weapon, for which he is sentenced to 2
shabu etc. He was also found to not have permits years and 4 months to 6 years of prision
for his firearms. However, Appellant denied that correccional; and (2) maintaining a drug den, for
he fired at the policemen and that he did not own which he was correctly sentenced by the trial
any of the firearms or the drugs, and that the court to reclusion perpetua. Costs against
police brought the items to plant as evidence. appellant.
naturedly. He told appellant to mind his
own business. An exchange of unfriendly
*ADDITIONAL words followed and the two in no time
grabbed each other. Esteban Gapilango, a
As to the search warrant, lower court stated PC enlisted man who was in plainclothes
that it was null and void because issued for more and on patrol duty, saw the two
than one specific offense, contrary to Sec. 3, Rule adversaries and separated them.
1[2]6 Rules of Court. Nevertheless, arrest was Appellant ran away but told Jagmis to wait
valid. and he would get his gun. On the way,
appellant met his brother-in-law, Ramon
Ramos, carrying a .22 caliber rifle and a .
JORGE VYTIACO vs. THE HONORABLE COURT 38 caliber pistol. Someone apparently had
OF APPEALS, ET AL. relayed the tiff to appellant's house. When
Gapilango saw Ramos handing the pistol
TOPIC: Resistance & Disobedience to a PIA. G.R. to appellant, he approached to demand
Nos. L-20246-48 April 24, 1967 the surrender of the firearms. He,
however, failed to get the weapons
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari to review because Ramos ran away with the rifle
the decision of the Court of Appeals finding the and appellant held him by the waist and
petitioner, Jorge Vytiaco, guilty of the crime of tried to snatch his service pistol in his
resistance and serious disobedience in Case back pocket. He tried to prevent appellant
CA-G.R. No. 00528-R. from gaining possession of the pistol and
while they were grappling, it went off.
As a result of an incident which occurred in Gapilango lost his balance and appellant
Aborlan, Palawan, on March 12, 1959, the succeeded in wresting the gun from him.
herein petitioner, Jorge Vytiaco, was charged With a revolver in each hand, his own and
before the Court of First Instance of Palawan in that of Gapilango, appellant ordered the
three criminal cases, to wit: 1. Criminal Case former and Jagmis, who followed
No. 2350 - Grave Threats 2. Criminal Case No. Gapilango, to raise their hands and not to
2351 - Assault Upon in Agent of a Person in advance or he would shoot them.
Authority 3. Criminal Case No. 2356 - Gapilango did as ordered but asked
Disobedience to a Person in Authority. appellant to return to him his pistol,
identifying himself as a PC soldier.
These cases were jointly tried by the Court Appellant refused to give the gun back
of First Instance of Palawan, and in all the and did not recognize Gapilango's
three cases herein petitioner was found authority. So Gapilango sent somebody to
guilty. call the PC detachment commander, Sgt.
Pelucio Buag. In the meantime, one Jesus
Lepasana arrived and Gapilango also
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. On requested him to help get his gun back
July 17, 1962, Court of Appeals rendered a from appellant who already went home.
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads While Lepasana was talking to appellant,
as follows: Sgt. Buag came. He asked appellant for
Gapilango's pistol and promised that he
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2350 would try to amicably settle the case.
and 2356 for grave threat and serious Appellant, who was standing outside his
disobedience, respectively, the decision is house, again declined to yield the gun and
reversed and appellant acquitted, with instead went inside and told the soldiers
costs de oficio. In Criminal Case No. 2351, to get it if they wanted it. Later in the
he is hereby held guilty, not of direct afternoon, Capt. Pastor Escano, PC
assault as held by the lower court but of assistant provincial commander to whom
resistance and serious disobedience. Sgt. Buag reported the incident went to
appellant's house and talked to him. The
It is the decision of the Court of Appeals in revolver was returned to Capt. Escano by
CA-G.R. No. 00528-R that is now sought to the vice mayor of Aborlan to whom
be reviewed by this Court. appellant surrendered it earlier.

The petitioner contends that CA committed Appellant's Version: On the day in


error in holding him guilty of the crime of question, he went to Zambales' market to
resistance and serious disobedience.STATE'S see a Mr. Murillo to have him sign some
version of FACTS: papers. While conversing with Murillo,
appellant heard Jagmis angrily talking
At about noon of March 12, 1959, in the aloud. Appellant, in a manner of greeting
private market of Manuel Zambales in Jagmis who was his friend, told him to cool
Panacan, Aborlan, Rosalino Jagmis was off as the weather was already hot. Jagmis
informed by his brother-in-law, Zambales, resented the remark and collared
that the previous day a certain Eduardo appellant. Surprised by Jagmis' reaction,
created trouble in the market, overturning appellant tried to free himself and
the tables. Jagmis got mad and started protested that he had done Jagmis no
talking in a loud voice. Appellant Jorge wrong and that they were friends. A
Vytiaco, who was passing by, heard companion of appellant and another man,
Jagmis. Appellant told him to calm down. who turned out to be Gapilango,
Jagmis did not take the remark good- intervened and Jagmis released appellant.
When appellant asked Jagmis why he act in pointing the revolver at Gapilango
collared him, he (appellant) having merely even after he was informed that he
intended his remark as a greeting to a (Gapilango) was a peace officer
friend, Jagmis again grabbed him and said constitutes direct assault. The fact that
that appellant was a rich man and had no Gapilango had his gun in hand was
business interfering. Appellant again perhaps not without reason considering
remonstrated and told Jagmis not to treat that appellant's brother-in-law appeared in
him that way because they were friends. the scene carrying firearms. Appellant was
Jagmis' brother-in-law, Zambales, able to wrest Gapilango's pistol. While
intervened and separated the two. Already retreating, he warned Gapilango, together
peeved and embarrassed, appellant with Jagmis, not to advance or he would
prepared to defend himself if Jagmis would shoot. At this particular moment when
charge again. But as appellant happened appellant could understandably be under
to look towards the road, he saw his the apprehension that his pursuers, one of
brother-in-law carrying a rifle and a pistol. whom he still did not know to be a
So he ran out and shouted at him to go constabulary soldier, were still after him,
home. He was followed by Gapilango and his act of pointing the guns at them
Jagmis. Jagmis told Gapilango to get the with warning not to come forward is
guns. Gapilango drew his pistol and not properly an act of intimidation
demanded the surrender of the firearms. but rather of self-protection; appellant
Appellant sensing Gapilango to be close thereby hoped to discourage them from
behind suddenly wheeled around and committing any rash action or violence
seeing the latter's gun aimed it him, against his person. Gapilango asked for
grabbed it. In the ensuing struggle for its the return of his gun, identifying himself.
possession, it fired. Finally, appellant was Appellant did not give the gun back. There
able to wrest it from Gapilango and with is no question, however, that he thereafter
his own revolver which he got from his went home. Under the circumstance, it
brother-in-law, appellant pointed them at cannot be said with certainty that
Gapilango and Jagmis and warned them, there was on the part of appellant a
while retreating, not to go near him or he palpable intent or determination to
would shoot. Mrs. Zambales at this stage defy a law officer and therefore his
approached appellant and they went failure to heed Gapilango's order to
home together. A little later after he had return the revolver constitutes
hidden the guns and while he was merely resistance and serious
standing outside his house, Gapilango and disobedience.
Sgt. Buag came. Sgt. Buag, without
asking any question, collared him and Appellant also pointed a revolver at
hereby demanded for Gapilango's Rosalino Jagmis and threatened to
revolver. Gapilango also held him by the shoot him if he advanced. The trial
shirt. Appellant asked Sgt. Buag that they court considered this as constituting grave
clear matters first. When he was released, threat. Appellant claims that when he saw
appellant went inside his house and told his brother-in-law carrying firearms, he ran
the soldiers to come inside if they wanted towards him and told him to go home. The
to get the pistol. But the soldiers left picture as we see it seems to be that when
instead. Appellant then delivered Jagmis saw appellant's brother-in-law
Gapilango's revolver to the vice mayor. carrying guns, Jagmis, with Gapilango,
went after appellant to prevent him from
It is now urged that appellant's getting hold of the weapons. Appellant,
conviction for assault upon an agent who had just been subjected to
of a person in authority, i.e., upon unwarranted violence by Jagmis, on his
Esteban Gapilango, a constabulary soldier, part, thought that he would be attacked
was an error, the prosecution having again. Thus, it is not farfetched, as we
failed utterly to show that appellant have observed above, that the purpose of
knew that Gapilango was a soldier or appellant in pointing the gun at Jagmis
an agent of a person in authority was to protect himself from what he
when he disarmed him, which thought was an impending aggression.
knowledge is essential for conviction. This is evident from appellant's warning to
Jagmis not to come near him while at the
ISSUE: WON appellant's conviction is same time retreating. The essence of
correct given that he has no knowledge threat is intimidation. Appellant's act,
that Gapilango was an agent of a person in this particular case, cannot be
in authority. considered an act of intimidation.

HELD: NO. Nowhere in the testimony of Appellant was also held guilty of
any of the prosecution witnesses could be grave disobedience in refusing to return
found that appellant knew or ought to Gapilango's pistol to Sgt. Buag despite
have known at the time he seized the latter's order therefor. There is reason
Gapilango's gun that the latter was a to believe the claim of appellant that Sgt.
peace officer. Gapilango revealed his Buag used unnecessary force in
identity to appellant only after the latter demanding the return of the revolver. If by
had dispossessed him of his gun and he using adequate means to repel the
was asking it back. It is contended by the unlawful aggression of Sgt. Buiag,
prosecution, nonetheless, that appellant's appellant would be merely acting in self-
defense and therefore free from any identity, appellant continued to point the
criminal liability (People vs. Dumo, supra), gun at him. There is no question, however, that
then he could not be guilty of he thereafter went home. Under the
disobedience in just declining to circumstance, it cannot be said with certainty
return the gun without using force or that there was on the part of appellant a
violence. palpable intent or determination to defy a
law officer and therefore his failure to heed
We find merit in the contention of Gapilango's order to return the revolver
petitioner. We gather that the petitioner was constitutes merely resistance and serious
acquitted of the charge of grave threats against disobedience.
the person of Rosalino Jagmis upon the ground
that when he pointed a gun at Jagmis his act The petitioner maintains that the particular act
did not constitute an intimidation, which is for which the petitioner was held guilty by the
an essential element in the crime of grave Court of Appeals that is, his failure to return
threats, it was simply an act of self-defense the gun was but one of a series of acts done in
to prevent Jagmis and Esteban Gapilango from self-defense and/or under a mistake of fact, one
getting nearer to him while he (petitioner) was it act following the other closely in point of time, all
the same time retreating. Thus, the purpose of arising from the same incident and each one
the appellant in pointing the gun at Jagmis was to performed under the same impulse.
protect himself from what he thought was an
impending aggression. This is evident from We find merit in the stand of the petitioner.
appellant's warning to Jagmis not to come near Let it be noted that, as the Court of Appeals itself
him while at the same time retreating. The had found, the petitioner did not know that
essence of threat is intimidation. Appellant's Gapilango was a constabulary soldier at the time
act, in this, particular case, cannot be considered when he grabbed Gapilango's gun and at the
an act of intimidation. time when he started pointing the guns at both
Gapilango and Jagmis. We consider that the
The Court of Appeals found that the refusal of the petitioner to return the gun
petitioner did not know Gapilango was a to Gapilango was but one of the series of
soldier when he disarmed Gapilango. Court acts on his part to protect himself. Under
of Appeals said: "Indeed, nowhere in the that circumstance it cannot reasonably be said
testimony of any of the prosecution witnesses that he meant to defy, or resist, or disobey an
can it be found that appellant knew or ought to agent of a person in authority who was in the
have known at the time he seized Gapilango's performance of his official duties. What assurance
gun that the latter was a peace officer. Gapilango had the petitioner at that precise moment,
revealed his identity to appellant only after the immediately after he had a struggle with
latter had disposed him of his gun and he was Gapilango for the possession of the latter's gun
asking it back." The petitioner, at that particular and while he was pointing that gun to Gapilango
moment, had two guns, one in each hand his and Jagmis, that Gapilango was really a peace
own pistol and the pistol that he had wrested officer? The evidence shows that Gapilango was
from Gapilango. The Court of Appeals in civilian clothes, he did not exhibit any badge
considered the act of the petitioner of he simply identified himself verbally after the
pointing the guns at Jagmis and Gapilango petitioner had wrested his gun from him. The
as an act of self-defense. That is why the refusal of petitioner to return Gapilango's gun
Court of Appeals did not find the petitioner guilty was but a continuation of his efforts to defend
of grave threats against the person of Jagmis, and himself from whatever harm that could come
of assault against Gapilango as an agent of a from both Jagmis and Gapilango. Under the
person in authority. But, while the Court of circumstances, the petitioner had reason to
Appeals had declared that under those believe that once he had returned the gun to
circumstances the petitioner had not committed Gapilango, Gapilango would use that gun against
the crime of assault against an agent of a person him. His refusal to return the gun was what
in authority he had, however, committed the any reasonable person would have done
crime of resistance and serious disobedience under the situation that the petitioner
against the agent of a person in authority. The found himself.
reason of the Court of Appeals in finding that the
petitioner had committed the crime of resistance We agree with the petitioner that in the
and serious disobedience is because he did not decision of the Court of Appeals there is no
return the gun of Gapilango after Gapilango had positive finding that the petitioner intended
identified himself as a constabulary soldier. In this to resist or seriously disobey an agent of a
connection, this is what the Court of Appeals person in authority while engaged in the
said: "At this particular moment when appellant performance of official duties. Likewise, there
could understandably be under the apprehension is no positive finding that when the petitioner
that his pursuers, one of whom he still did not refused to return Gapilango's gun he believed
know to be a constabulary soldier, were still after that Gapilango was a constabulary soldier, and
him, his act of pointing the gun at them with that the petitioner knew that Gapilango was at
warning not to come forward is not properly an the time performing his official duties as a peace
act of intimidation but rather of self-protection; officer. We accept the hypothesis offered by
appellant thereby hoped to discourage them from counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had
committing any rush action or violence against reason to suspect that Gapilango was helping
his person. Gapilango asked for the return of his Jagmis, because right at the start of the incident
gun, identifying himself. Appellant did not give between Jagmis and the petitioner at the store of
the gun back. The evidence does not show Ramon Zambales, Gapilango did not identify
whether or not, after knowing Gapilango's
himself as a peace officer and both of them In Criminal Case No. 9414 of the Court of First
pursued the petitioner from the store. Instance of Camarines Sur, Eligio Orbita, a
Provincial guard, is prosecuted for the crime
Before a person can be held guilty of the of Infedelity in the Custody of Prisoner,
crime of resistance or disobedience to a defined and punished under Article 224 of
person in authority or the agent of such the Revised Penal Code, committed, as
person it must be shown beyond reasonable follows:
doubt that the accused knew that the
person he disobeyed or resisted is a person That on or about the 12th day of September.
in authority or the agent of such person 1968, in the barrio of Taculod, municipality of
who is actually engaged in the performance Canaman, province of Camarines Sur, Philippines,
of his official duties. What is punished as an and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
act of resistance or serious disobedience under Court, the said accused, being then a member of
the Revised Penal Code is not the resistance or the Provincial Guard of Camarines Sur and
disobedience against a person in authority or an specially charged with the duty of keeping under
agent of such person in his capacity as a private custody and vigilance detention prisoner Pablo
individual but in his official capacity as an Denaque, did then and there with great
authority under the law, or as agent of the law, carelessness and unjustifiable negligence leave
while engaged in the performance of his official the latter unguarded while in said barrio, thereby
duties. The facts as narrated in the decision of giving him the opportunity to run away and
the Court of Appeals engender in the mind a escape, as in fact said detention prisoner Pablo
serious doubt as to whether or not the petitioner Denaque did run away and escape from the
had the intention to resist and disobey a peace custody of the said accused. 1
officer who was in the performance of his official
duty. That doubt must be resolved in favor of the In the course of the trial thereof, or more
petitioner. Consequently, We hold that the particularly during the cross-examination of
Court of Appeals erred when in case CA-G.R. prosecution witness Jose Esmeralda, assistant
No. 00528-R, it found the petitioner guilty provincial warden of Camarines Sur, the
of the crime of resistance and serious defense brought forht and confronted the
disobedience as defined in Article 161 of witness with a note, marked as exhibit,
the Revised Penal Code. CA's decison insofar purportedly written by Gov. Armando
as it relates to case CA-G.R. No. 00528-R which is Cledera, asking Jose Esmeralda to send five
now before this Court on appeal in case G.R. No. men to work in the construction of a fence
L-20247 is hereby reversed, and the petitioner at his house at Taculod, Canaman,
is thereby acquitted of the crime of Camarines Sur, then leased by the province
resistance and serious disobedience . and used as an official guest house. Jose
Esmeralda, declared, however, that he could not
remember who ahnded the note for him; that he
was not sure as to genuineness of the signature
TOPIC: Delivery of Prisoners from Jail appearing therein and that he was not preszent
when the note was made and signed by Gov.
[DISCLAIMER: Medyo may mga typo error si Cledera. 2 Beleiving that the escape of Pablo
LawPhil haha antok na ata yung nagtype] Denaque was made possible by the note of Gov.
Cledera to Jose Esmeralda and that Cledera and
Esmeralda are equally guilty of the offense for
G.R. No. L-31839 June 30, 1980 which tha accused Eligio Orbita had been
charged, the defense cousel filed a motion in
EDMUNDO S. ALBERTO, Provincial Fiscal and court seeking the amendment of the information
BONIFACIO C. INTIA 1st Asst. Provincial so as to include Gov. cledera and Jose Esmeralda
Fiscal, both of Camarines Sur, petitioners, as defendants therein. 3
vs.
HON. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as Acting upon said motion, as well as the opposition
Judge of the CFI of Camarines Sur and of the prosecution officers 4 and finding that "the
ELIGIO ORBITA, respondents. court cannot grant the motion or order the
inclusion of Gov. Cledera and Lt. Esmeralda at
this stage unless an investigation is made," the
FACTS: Petition for certiorari, with a prayer for respondent Judge directed the Fiscals office,
the issuance of a writ of preliminay injunction, to within 15 days from date, to cause the further
annul and set aside the order of the respondent investigation of the case, taking into
Judge, dated January 26, 1970, directing the consideration the provisions of Article 156 in
petitioners, Provincial Fiscal and Assitant relation to Articles 223 and 224 of the Revised
Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur, to amend the Penal Code in order to determine once and for all
information filed in Criminal Case No. 9414 of the whether the Governor as jailer of the Province
Court of First Instance of CamarinesSur, entitled: and his assistant have any criminatory
"The People of the Philippines, plaintiff, versus participation in the circumstances of Pablo
Eligio Orbita, accused," so as to include, as Denaque's escape from judicial custody. 5
defendants, Governor Armando Cledera and Jose
Esmeralda, assistant provincial warden of In compliance with said order, the Fiscal set the
Camarines Sur; as well as the order dated reinvestigation of the case for December 19,
February 18, 1970, denying the motion for the 1969. Summonses were issued to Gov. Cledera
reconsideration of the said order. Jose Esmeralda, Lorenzo Padua, the provincial
warden, and the accused Eligio Orbita to be
present thereat. 6 Dr. went thereat But, on the
date set for the reinvestigation of the case, only In order to be guilty under the aforequoted
Gov. Cledera Jose Esmeralda and Lorenzo Padua provisions of the Penal Code, it is necessary
appeared. The accused Eligio Orbita did not that the public officer had consented to, or
appear. Neither was the note (Exhibit 2) connived in, the escape of the prisoner
produced. Since no additional evidence was under his custody or charge. Connivance in
presented, the Fiscal manifested in Court on the escape of a prisoner on the part of the person
January 2, 1970 that "after conducting a in charge is an essential condition in the
reinvestigation of the case and after a thorough commission of the crime of faithlessness in the
and intelligent analysis of the facts and law custody of the prisoner. If the public officer
involved, no prima facie case against Governor charged with the duty of guarding him does not
Cledera and Jose Esmeralda exist, hence, they connive with the fugitive, then he has not
cannot be charged. 7 violated the law and is not guilty of the
crime. 17 For sure no connivance in the escape of
On January 19, 1970, the accused Eligio Orbita Pablo Denaque from the custody of the accused
filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" praying "that Eligio Orbita can be deduced from the note of
the Order of this Honorable Court dated Gov. Cledera to Jose Esmeralda asking for five
December 11, 1969 be, in that instead of men to work in the guest house, it appearing that
ordering the Fiscal to reinvestigate this case, on the notes does not mention the names of the
the basis of the evidence already adduce during prisoners to be brought to the guest house; and
the trial of this case, he be ordered to amend the that it was the accused Eligio Orbita who picked
information on to include Cledera and Esmeralda the men to compose the work party.
it appearing the on record that their inclusion is
warranted. 8 Neither is there evidence to warrant the
prosecution of Cledera and Esmeralda under
On January 26, 1970, the respondent Court issued Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code. This article
the order complained of, the dispositive portion of punishes the public officer in whose custody or
which reads, as follows: charge a prisoner has escaped by reason of his
negligence resulting in evasion is definite
WHEREFORE, premises considered, in the light of amounting to deliberate non- performance of
the facts brought about by the prosecuting fiscal duty. 18 In the constant case, the respondent
let the charges be so amended by including in the Judge said:
information the author or writer of Exhibit 2 and
the person or persons who carried out the said We cannot, for the present be
orders considering the provisions of Article 156 in reconciled with the Idea that the
relation to Articles 223 and 224 of the Penal escape. of Denaque was facilitated
Code. 9 by the Governor's or . his assistants
negligence. According to law, if
Moreover, there is no sufficient evidence in the there is any negligence committed
record to show a prima facie case against Gov. it must be the officer who is
Cledera and Jose Esmeralda. charged with the custody and
guarding of the ... 19
ISSUE: WON Gov. Cledera, Assistant Provincial
Warden and Provincial Guard of CamSur is liable We find no reason to set aside such findings.
under Article 156 or even Article 223 of the RPC
WHEREFORE, the orders issued on January 26,
HELD: NO. The offense in Article 156 may be and February 18, 1970 in Criminal Case No. 9414
committed in two ways: (1) by removing a person of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur,
confined in any jail or penal establishment; and entitled: "The People of the Philippines, plaintiff,
(2) by helping such a person to escape. To versus Eligio Orbita, accused are hereby annulled
remove means to take away a person from the and set aside. The respondent Judge or any other
place of his confinement, with or without the judge acting in his stead is directed to proceed
active compensation of the person released To with the trial of the case. Without costs.
help in the escape of a Person confined in any jail
or penal institution means to furnished that SO ORDERED.
person with the material means such as a file,
ladder, rope, etc. which greatly facilitate his
escape. 15 The offenders under this article is
usually committed by an outsider who EVASION OF SENTENCE
removes from jail any person therein
confined or helps him escape. If the
offender is a public officer who has custody ADELAIDA TANEGA, petitioner, vs. HON.
or charge of the prisoner, he is liable for HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, in his capacity
infidelity in the custody of prisoner defined as Judge of the Court of First Instance of
and penalty under Article 223 of the Rizal, Branch V, and the Chief of Police of
Revised Penal Code. Since Gov. Cledera as Quezon City
governor, is the jailer of the province, 16 and Jose
Esmeralda is the assistant provincial warden,
they cannot be prosecuted for the escape Of FACTS:
Pablo Denaque under Article 156 of the Revised
Penal Code. There is likewise no sufficient Convicted of slander by the City Court of Quezon
evidence to warrant their prosecution under City, petitioner appealed. Found guilty once again
Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code.
by the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, she
was sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor, to his sentence" by "escaping during the term of his
indemnify the offended party, Pilar B. Julio, in the imprisonment by reason of final judgment." That
sum of P100.00, with the corresponding escape should take place while serving sentence,
subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the costs. is emphasized by the provisions of the second
sentence of Article 157 which provides for a
The Court of First Instance of Quezon City, said higher penalty if such "evasion or escape shall
court, on January 11, 1965, directed that have taken place by means of unlawful entry, by
execution of the sentence be set for January 27, breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or
1965. On petitioner's motion, execution was floors, or by using picklocks, false keys, disguise,
deferred to February 12, 1965, at 8:30 a.m. At the deceit, violence or intimidation, or through
appointed day and hour, petitioner failed to show connivance with other convicts or employees of
up. This prompted the respondent judge, on the penal institution, . . ." Indeed, evasion of
February 15, 1965, to issue a warrant for her sentence is but another, expression of the term
arrest, and on March 23, 1965, an alias warrant of "jail breaking".
arrest. Petitioner was never arrested. Afterwards,
she through her counsel filed a motion to squash. The SC ruled that for prescription of penalty
On December 19, 1966, the respondent judge of imprisonment imposed by final sentence
ruled that the penalty imposed upon the accused to commence to run, the culprit should
has to be served", rejected the plea of escape during the term of such
prescription of penalty and, instead, directed the imprisonment.
issuance of another alias warrant of arrest.
Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: When does the prescription of


penalty start to run
HELD:
Arresto menor and a fine of P100.00 constitute a THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
light penalty. By Article 92 of the Revised Penal appellee, vs. FLORENTINO ABILONG, defendant-
Code, light penalties "imposed by final sentence" appellant.
prescribe in one year. The period of prescription G.R. No. L-1960 November 26, 1948
of penaltiesso the succeeding Article 93 provides
"shall commence to run from the date when the Facts:
culprit should evade the service of his sentence".
What then is the concept of evasion of service of Florentino Abilong was charged in the Court of
First Instance of Manila with evasion of service of
sentence? Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code sentence:
furnishes the ready answer. Says Article 157:
That on or about the 17th day of September,
"ART. 157. Evasion of service of 1947, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
sentence. The penalty of prision accused, being then a convict sentenced and
correccional in its medium and ordered to serve two (2) years, four (4) months
maximum periods shall be imposed and one (1) day of destierro during which he
upon any convict who shall evade
should not enter any place within the radius of
100 kilometers from the City of Manila, by virtue
service of his sentence by escaping
of final judgment rendered by the municipal court
during the term of his imprisonment6
on April 5, 1946n criminal case No. B-4795 for
by reason of nal judgment. However, if attempted robbery, did then and there wilfully,
such evasion or escape shall have unlawfully and feloniously evade the service of
taken place by means of unlawful said sentence by going beyond the limits made
entry, by breaking doors, windows, against him and commit vagrancy.
gates, walls, roofs, or oors, or by using
picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, Upon arraignment he pleaded guilty and was
violence or intimidation, or through sentenced to two (2) years, four (4) months and
connivance with other convicts or one (1) day of prision correccional, with the
employees of the penal institution, the accessory penalties of the law and to pay the
penalty shall be prision correccional in
costs.
its maximum period."
Counsel for the appellant contends that a person
Elements of evasion of service of sentence are: like the accused evading a sentence of destierro
(1) the offender is a convict by final judgment; (2) is not criminally liable under the provisions of the
he "is serving his sentence which consists in Revised Penal Code, particularly article 157 of the
deprivation of liberty"; and (3) he evades service said Code for the reason that said article 157
refers only to persons who are imprisoned in a
of sentence by escaping during the term of his
penal institution and completely deprived of their
sentence. This must be so. For, by the express liberty. He bases his contention on the word
terms of the statute, a convict evades "service of "imprisonment" used in the English text of said
article which in part reads as follows:
New Bilibid Prisons, notwithstanding the fact that
Evasion of service of sentence. The penalty of the President of the Republic of the Philippines,
prision correccional in its medium and maximum through the recommendation of the Board of
periods shall be imposed upon any convict who Indeterminate Sentence, granted the petitioner
shall evade service of his sentence by escaping on December 23, 1946, absolute pardon of the
during the term of his imprisonment by reason of crime of murder which he committed and of
final judgment. which he was convicted and sentenced
to reclusion perpetua on June 5, 1945, by the
ISSUE: WON ABILONG IS GUILTY OF EVASION OF Court of First Instance of Manila in criminal case
SERVICE no. 70022.

RULING: The petitioner, while serving the sentence


of reclusion perpetua for the crime of murder
YES. The Solicitor General in his brief says that above mentioned, escaped from prison on
had the original text of the Revised Penal Code October 21, 1945, and for said evasion he was
been in the English language, then the theory of prosecuted and sentenced on March 22, 1946, by
the appellant could be uphold. However, it is the the Court of First Instance of Manila in case no.
Spanish text that is controlling in case of doubt. 73820, to three (3) years, six (6) months and
twenty (20) days of prision correccional; that on
We agree with the Solicitor General that April 8, 1946, the petitioner again escaped and
inasmuch as the Revised Penal Code was evaded the service of the same sentence, and for
originally approved and enacted in Spanish, the the second evasion he was prosecuted and
Spanish text governs. It is clear that the sentenced on August 20, 1946, to two (2) years,
word"imprisonment" used in the English text is a four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
wrong or erroneous translation of the phrase correccional in case No. 14862 by the Court of
"sufriendo privacion de libertad" used in the First Instance of Rizal; and that on May 24, 1946,
Spanish text. It is equally clear that although the the petitioner was prosecuted for illegal
Solicitor General impliedly admits destierro as not possession of firearm, convicted and sentenced
constituting imprisonment, it is a deprivation of by the Court of First Instance of Manila, in case
liberty, though partial, in the sense that as in the No. 74312, to six (6) months of imprisonment,
present case, the appellant by his sentence of and to pay a fine of three hundred pesos (P300),
destierro was deprived of the liberty to enter the with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
City of Manila. insolvency.

This view has been adopted in the case of People Under the commitment orders issued by the
vs. Samonte, No. 36559 (July 26, 1932; 57 Phil., respective Courts of First Instance in said cases
968) wherein this Court held, as quoted in the Nos. 73820, 14862, and 74312, the petitioner is
brief of the Solicitor General that "it is clear that a confined in the New Bilibid Prisons to serve a total
person under sentence of destierro is suffering of six (6) years, four (4) months and twenty-one
deprivation of his liberty and escapes from the (21) days of imprisonment, commencing with the
restrictions of the penalty when he enters the date of his pardon of the crime of murder above
prohibited area." Said ruling in that case was mentioned.
ratified by this Court, though, indirectly in the
case of People vs. Jose de Jesus, (45 Off. Gaz. Issue: whether or not he has to serve also the
Supp. to No. 9, p. 370) 1 , where it was held that sentences rendered in the above mentioned
one evades the service of his sentence of cases Nos. 14683 and 74311.
destierro when he enters the prohibited area
specified in the judgment of conviction, and he
cannot invoke the provisions of the Indeterminate Held: Yes, The penalties imposed upon the
Sentence Law which provides that its provisions petitioner for evasions of service of sentence
do not apply to those who shall have escaped have not been affected by the absolute pardon
from confinement or evaded sentence. granted to him remitting the unserved penalty to
which he was finally sentenced for the crime of
In conclusion we find and hold that the appellant murder; because petitioner was convicted of
is guilty of evasion of service of sentence under evasions of service of sentence before the pardon
article 157 of the Revised Penal Code (Spanish and while he was serving said sentence of
text), in that during the period of his sentence of conviction for murder, which was then still in full
destierro by virtue of final judgment wherein he force.
was prohibited from entering the City of Manila,
he entered said City. Evasion of service of sentence or "jail breaking" is
an offense defined and penalized as a crime in
this jurisdiction by article 157 of the Revised
Penal Code, and is also punished as such in
Topic: Evasion of Service of Sentence practically all jurisdictions even those under the
common law; because it is an attempt at least to
G.R. No. L-1809 January 23, 1948 evade penalty inflicted by the courts upon
criminals and thus defeat the purpose of the law
NARCISO ALVAREZ Y of either reforming or punishing them for having
CORTES, petitioner, vs.THE DIRECTOR OF disturbed the public order. When violation of a
PRISONS, respondent. conditional pardon is a mere infringement of the
terms stipulated in a contract between the
This is a petition for habeas corpus filed by the sovereign power or the Chief Executive and the
petitioner against the Director of Prisons on the criminal, to the effect that the former will release
ground that he is being illegally detained in the the latter subject to the condition that if he does
not comply with them, he will be recommitted to and violation of Presidential Decree No. 772
prison and serve the unexpired portion of his (interfering with police functions).
original sentence if higher than six years,
or prision correccional in its minimum period if On 4 June 1986, the respondent Minister of Justice
less than six years. The penalty for the crime of wrote to the President of the Philippines informing
the murder is different and independent from that her of the Resolution of the Board recommending
for evasion of service of sentence, and therefore
the evader of service of sentence must continue cancellation of the conditional pardon previously
serving the punitive sentence rendered against granted to petitioner. The President cancelled the
him for the offense of evasion, irrespective of the conditional pardon of the petitioner. The
pardon or remission or penalty for murder. petitioner was accordingly arrested and confined
in Muntinlupa to serve the unexpired portion of
VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON his sentence.
G.R. No. 76872 July 23, 1987 Petitioner now impugns the validity of the Order
WILFREDO TORRES Y SUMULONG, vs. HON. of Arrest and Recommitment. He claims that he
NEPTALI A. GONZALES, THE CHAIRMAN, did not violate his conditional pardon since he has
BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLE, and THE not been convicted by final judgment of the
DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PRISONS, twenty (20) counts of estafa charged in Criminal
Cases Nos. Q-19672 and Q-20756 nor of the
FELICIANO, J.:
crime of sedition in Criminal Case No. Q-22926.3
This is an original petition for habeas corpus filed
on behalf of petitioner Wilfredo S. Torres, ISSUE: WON the conviction of a crime by final
presently confined at the National Penitentiary in judgment of a court is necessary before petitioner
Muntinlupa. can be validly rearrested and recommitted for
violation of conditional pardon.
Sometime before 1979 (no more specific date
appears in the records before this Court), RULING:
petitioner was convicted by the Court of First The status of our case law on the matter under
Instance of Manila of the crime of estafa (two consideration may be summed up in the following
counts). Eventually, a conditional pardon was propositions:
granted to the petitioner by the President of the
Philippines on condition that petitioner would "not 1. The grant of pardon and the
again violate any of the penal laws of the determination of the terms and conditions
Philippines. Should this condition be violated, he of a conditional pardon are purely
will be proceeded against in the manner executive acts which are not subject to
judicial scrutiny.
prescribed by law."2 Petitioner accepted the
conditional pardon and was consequently 2. The determination of the occurrence of
released from confinement. a breach of a condition of a pardon, and
the proper consequences of such breach,
On 21 May 1986, the Board of Pardons and Parole
may be either a purely executive act, not
(the "Board") resolved to recommend to the
subject to judicial scrutiny under Section
President the cancellation of the conditional
64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code;
pardon granted to the petitioner. The evidence
or it may be a judicial act consisting of
before the Board showed that petitioner had been
trial for and conviction of violation of a
charged with twenty counts of estafa which
conditional pardon under Article 159 of the
cases were then (on 21 May 1986) pending trial
Revised Penal Code. Where the President
before the Regional Trial Court of Rizal (Quezon
opts to proceed under Section 64 (i) of the
City). The record before the Board also showed
Revised Administrative Code, no judicial
that petitioner had been convicted by the
pronouncement of guilt of a subsequent
Regional Trial Court of Rizal (Quezon City) of the
crime is necessary, much less conviction
crime of sedition i this conviction was then
therefor by final judgment of a court, in
pending appeal before the Intermediate Appellate
order that a convict may be recommended
Court. The Board also had before it a letter report
for the violation of his conditional pardon.
dated 14 January 1986 from the National Bureau
of Investigation ("NBI"), addressed to the Board, 3. Because due process is not semper et
on the petitioner. Per this letter, the records of unique judicial process, and because the
the NBI showed that a long list of charges had conditionally pardoned convict had already
been brought against the petitioner during the been accorded judicial due process in his
last twenty years for a wide assortment of crimes trial and conviction for the offense for
including estafa, other forms of swindling, grave which he was conditionally pardoned,
threats, grave coercion, illegal possession of Section 64 (i) of the Revised
firearms, ammunition and explosives, malicious Administrative Code is not afflicted with a
mischief, violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, constitutional vice.
We do not believe we should depart from the and convicted by final judgment before he can be
clear and well understood rules and doctrine on made to suffer the penalty prescribed in Article
this matter. It may be emphasized that what is 159.
involved in the instant case is not the prosecution
Succinctly put, in proceeding against a convict
of the parolee for a subsequent offense in the
who has been conditionally pardoned and who is
regular course of administration of the criminal
alleged to have breached the conditions of his
law. What is involved is rather the ascertainment
pardon, the Executive Department has two
of whether the convict has breached his
options: (i) to proceed against him under Section
undertaking that he would "not again violate any
64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code; or (ii)
of the penal laws of the Philippines"for purposes
to proceed against him under Article 159 of the
of reimposition upon him of the remitted portion
Revised Penal Code which imposes the penalty of
of his original sentence. The consequences that
prision correccional, minimum period, upon a
we here deal with are the consequences of an
convict who "having been granted conditional
ascertained breach of the conditions of a pardon.
pardon by the Chief Executive, shall violate any of
A convict granted conditional pardon, like the
the conditions of such pardon."Here, the
petitioner herein, who is recommitted must of
President has chosen to proceed against
course be convicted by final judgment of a court
the petitioner under Section 64 (i) of the
of the subsequent crime or crimes with which he
Revised Administrative Code. That choice is
was charged before the criminal penalty for such
an exercise of the President's executive
subsequent offense(s) can be imposed upon him.
prerogative and is not subject to judicial
Again, since Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code
scrutiny.
defines a distinct, substantive, felony, the parolee
or convict who is regarded as having violated the Petition is dismissed.
provisions thereof must be charged, prosecuted

You might also like