Case of People of the Philippines vs.

Elias Lovedioro y Castro

G.R.No. 112235 29November1995 (People vs. Lovedioro 250 SCRA 389)

Rebellion -- Art.134 of the Revised Penal Code

PEOPLE vs CABRERA
DOCTRINE
Sedition is the raising of commotions ordisturbances in the state.
(SHORT VERSION)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Elias Lovedioro with 3 other companions fatally shot SPO3 Jesus Lucilo while Lucilo
was walking along Burgos St. away from Daraga, Albay Public Market. The victim
died on the same day from massive blood loss. On November 6, 1992, Elias
Lovedioro was then charged of the crime of murder, and subsequently found guilty.
Lovedioro then appealed the decision, contesting the verdict of murder instead of
rebellion. It was confirmed by the prosecutions principal witness that Lovedioro was a
member of the New Peoples Army.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Was the RTC correct in holding Lovedioro liable for the crime of murder, instead of
rebellion?
- Yes. Because, overt acts and purpose are essential components of the crime of
rebellion, with either of these elements wanting, the crime of rebellion does not exist.
- Political motive should be established before a person charged with a common
crime- alleging rebellion in order to lessen the possible imposable penalty- could
benefit from the laws relatively benign attitude towards political crimes. If no political
motive is established or proved, the accused should be convicted of the common
crime and not of rebellion.
- In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an
organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself
suffice.
- The killing of the victim, as observed by the Solicitor General, offered no contribution
to the achievement of the NPAs subversive aims, in fact, there were no known acts of
the victims that can be considered as offending to the NPA.
- Evidence shows that Lovedioros allegation of membership to the N.P.A was
conveniently infused to mitigate the penalty imposable upon him.
HELD:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the trial court's decision dated
September 14, 1993, sentencing the accused of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED, in toto.

Because of certain incidents, the Philippine constabularyand the Police of Manila had
a rough relationship witheach other. The constabulary force had grudges againstthe
Police force of Manila. One night, the constabularyforce went to attack the Police
force, killing andwounding several policemen and civilians.
FACTS
The Philippine Constabulary has grudges against the police of Manila and they want
to inflict revenge for thefollowing reasons:(1) On December 13, 1920, a Manila police
arrested awoman who is a member of the household of aconstabulary soldier and
was allegedly abused by thesaid policeman.(2) Private Macasinag of the
Constabulary was shot by aManila police and was mortally wounded. A day afterthe
incident, a rumor spread among the Constabularythat the Police who shot Macasinag
was back to hisoriginal duties while Macasinag was declared dead.There were also
rumors that the said shooting wasordered.On the night of December 15 some
members of theConstabulary escaped their barracks through a window(the saw out
the window bars). They had rifles andammunitions and were organized in groups
under thecommand of their sergeants and corporals. They attackedsome Manila
policemen in these specific instances:(1) On Calle Real, Intramuros, a group of
theConstabulary shot and killed an American Policemanand his friend.(2) The
Constabulary indiscriminately shot at a
passer- by, causing a death and wounding most of the passengers.(3) While riding a
motorcycle driven bypoliceman
Saplala, Captain William E. Wichman (asst. chief of police in Manila) was shot and kill
ed together withSaplala
ISSUES/HELD
(1) Is there connivance/conspiracy between the accusedYES
(2) Are the accused properly convicted of a violation ofthe Treason and Sedition LawYES

RATIO
(1) Conspiracies are generally proved by a number ofindefinite acts, conditions, and
circumstances which varyaccording to the purposes to be accomplished. If it
be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts thesame object, one performing
one part and anotheranother part of the same, so as to complete it, with aview to the

attainment of the same object, one will be justified in the conclusion

that they were engaged in aconspiracy to the effect that object. It is incontestablethat
all of the defendants were imbued with the same purpose, which was to avenge
themselves on the policeforce of Manila. A common feeling of resentmentanimated
all.(2) Sedition, in its more general sense, is the raising ofcommotions or disturbances
in the State. The Philippinelaw on the subject makes all persons guilty of seditionwho
rise publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain byforce of outside of legal methods
any one of five objects,including that of inflicting any act of hate or revengeupon the
person or property of any official or agent ofthe Insular government or of a provincial
or municipalgovernment.The counsel contested that it is necessary that theoffender
should be a private citizen and the
offended party a public functioinary, and what really happenedwas a fight between
two armed bodies of the PhilippineGovernment. The court held that this contention
iswithout foundation.
The Treason and Sedition Lawmakes no distinction between the persons to which
itapplies. What is important is that there is a publicrising to incite or inflict any act of
hate or revengeupon the person or property of any official or agentof the Insular
government or of a provincial ormunicipal government.DECISION
Judgment
affirmed

PNP Chief Arturo Lomibao also intercepted information that PNP- SAF members are
planning to defect from the administration, while on the same view Congressman
Peping Cojuanco plotted moves to bring down the Arroyo Administration.
Huge number of soldiers joined the rallies to provide critical mass and armed
component to Anti- Arroyo protests.
Bombings of telephone communication towers and cell sites in Bulacaan and Bataan
was also considered as an additional factual basis after the issuance of PP 1017 and
GO 5.
Because of these incidental series of events which clearly presents a critical situation,
President Arroyo cancelled all activities related to EDSA People Power I. Mike
Arroyo, then Executive Secretary, announced that warrantless arrest and takeover of
facilities can be implemented.
Succeeding this announcement was the arrest of Randy David, a Filipino journalist
and UP professor due to a mistake of fact that he was actually involved in the street
rallies. Seizure of Daily Tribune, Malaya and Abante-- all local news publication, took
place which, according to the PNP, was meant to show a strong presence to tell the
media outlets not to connive or do anything that would help rebels in bringing down
the government. Police also arrested Congressman Crispin Beltran, who then
represented the Anakpawis Party.

.
David vs. Arroyo G.R. No. 171396 May 3, 2006
Facts of the case:
During the celebration of People Power I, President Arroyo issued Presidential
Proclamation 1017 (PP 1017 for brevity) declaring a state of national emergency.
The President also issued General Order (G.O.) No. 5 implementing PP 1017.
The President stated that over the past months, elements in political opposition have
conspired with extreme left represented by NDF- CCP- NPA and military adventurists,
which caused her to declare such order. The President considered aims to oust the
President and take- over reigns of government as clear and present danger.
On March 3, President Arroyo lifted PP 1017.
Solicitor General argued that the basis of declaring PP 1017 was that the intent of the
Constitution is to give full discretionary powers to the President in determining the
necessity of calling out the AFP.
However despite the contentions of the Solicitor General, the Magdalo group indicted
the Oakwood mutiny and called to wear red bands on their left arms to show disgust.
At the same time Oplan Hackle I was discovered, which constitutes plans of
bombings and attacks on PMA Alumni Homecoming in Baguio, the same event where
the President was invited. The next morning after the alumni homecoming
celebration, a bomb was found inside the campus.

Issue:
Whether or not the issuance of Presidential Proclamation PP 1017 is
unconstitutional? Whether or not the arrest of Randy David and the seizure of Daily
Tribune et. al., is unconstitutional?
Ruling of the court:
Respondents claim that such petition is moot and academic based on the issuance of
PP 1017, but the Court rejects such contention. A moot and academic case is one
that ceases to present a justiciable controversy. In this case, the Court is convinced
that the President was justified in issuing PP 1017 which calls for military aid.
Most people then equate it to martial law, but such case is different wherein the basis
then was the 1973 Constitution. Under the present 1987 Constitution, the President
may summon armed forces to aid him in supporting lawless violence.
The President's declaration of state rebellion was merely an act declaring a status or
conduction of a public moment of interest. State of national emergency, however, is
the prerogative of the President. Her exercise of emergency powers such as the
taking over of privately owned utility requires delegation from the Congress, which is
entirely different from the martial law.

As to the seizure of the Daily Tribune and the arrest of Randy David, the Court
considers those actions unlawful based on the fact that it violates the constitutional
mandate of freedom of expression.

People vs Hernandez
G.R. No. L-6025
May 30, 1964
Facts:

PEOPLE VS AMADO HERNANDEZ (99 PHIL 515)1. What happened:

About March 15, 1945, Amado Hernandez and other appellants were accused
of conspiring, confederating and cooperating with each other, as well as with the
thirty-one(31) defendants charged in the criminal cases of the Court of First Instance
of Manila. Theywere accused of being members of PKP Community Party of the
Philippines which wasactively engaged in an armed rebellion against the government
of the Philippines. With the party of HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa mga
Hapon), they committed thecrime of rebellion causing murder, pillage, looting plunder,
etc., enumerated in 13 attackson government forces or civilians by HUKS.
2. Crime Committed:
Rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies
3. Contention of the State:
The government, headed by the Solicitor General, argued that the gravity of thecrime
committed required the denial of bail. Moreover, the complex crime charged by
thegovernment against Hernandez has been successfully imposed with other arreste
dcommunist leaders and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

This is the appeal prosecuted by the defendants from the judgment

rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Agustin P. Montesa,
presiding, in its Criminal Case No. 15841, People vs. Amado V. Hernandez,
et al., and Criminal Case No. 15479, People vs. Bayani Espiritu, et al. In
Criminal Case No. 15841 (G.R. No. L-6026) the charge is for Rebellion with
Multiple Murder, Arsons and Robberies. The appellants are Amado V.
Hernandez, Juan J. Cruz, Genaro de la Cruz, Amado Racanday, Fermin
Rodillas and Julian Lumanog; Aquilino Bunsol, Adriano Samson and Andres
Baisa, Jr. were among those sentenced in the judgment appealed from, but
they have withdrawn their appeal. In Criminal Case No. 15479 (G.R. No. L6026) the charge is for rebellion with murders, arsons and kidnappings.
The accused are Bayani Espiritu Teopista Valerio and Andres Balsa, Jr.; they
all appealed but Andres Balsa, Jr. withdrew his appeal.
A joint trial of both cases was held, after which the court rendered the
decision subject of the present appeals.
Issue:
Whether or not the defendants-appelants are liable for the crime of
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection under Art. 136
of the RPC?

4. Contention of the Accused:

Held:

An appeal prosecuted by the defendants regarding the judgment rendered by theCFI

in Manila that rebellion cannot be a complex crime with murder, arson or robbery.

The court found defendants-appellants Hernandez, member of the

Communist Party of the Philippines, President of the Congress of Labor
Organizations (CLO), had close connections with the Secretariat of the
Communist Party and held continuous communications with its leaders and
its members, and others, guilty as principal of the crime charged against
him and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the
accessories provided by law, and to pay the proportionate amount of the
costs.

5. Ruling:
The court ruled that murder, arson, and robbery are mere ingredient of the crime
of rebellion as means necessary for the perpetration of the offense. Such common
offense isabsorbed or inherent of the crime of rebellion. Inasmuch as the acts
specified in Article 135constitutes, one single crime it follows that said acts offer no
occasion for the application of Article 48 which requires therefore the commission of
at least two crimes.***
HERNANDEZ DOCTRINE
: Rebellion cannot be complexed with commoncrimes such as killings, destruction of
property, etc., committed on the occasion and infurtherance thereof. The thinking is
not anymore correct more so that there is no legal basisfor such rule now. Rebellion
constitutes ONLY ONE CRIME. **

In the testimonies shown in court, it further appears that Taruc and other
CPP leaders used to send notes to appellant Hernandez, who in turn issued
press releases for which he found space in the local papers. His acts in this
respect belong to the category of propaganda, to which he appears to have
limited his actions as a Communist.
However, in their appeal, defendants-appellants Amado V. Hernandez, Juan
J. Cruz, Amado Racanday and Genaro de la Cruz are absolved from the
charges contained in the information, with their proportionate share of the
costs de oficio.
But other defendants-appellants, namely, Julian Lumanog and Fermin

Rodillas, Bayani Espiritu and Teopista Valerio were found guilty of the crime
of conspiracy to commit rebellion, as defined and punished in Article 136 of
the Revised Penal Code, and each and everyone of them is hereby
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years, four months and twentyone days of prision correccional, and to pay a fine of P5,000.00, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay their proportional
share of the costs.

is nothing more, renders the member guilty of conspiracy to commit

rebellion punishable by law.

Advocacy of Communism put into Action

The advocacy of Communism or Communistic theory and principle is not to
be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy unless transformed or
converted into an advocacy of action. In the very nature of things, mere
advocacy of a theory or principle is insufficient unless the communist
advocates action, immediate and positive, the actual agreement to start an
uprising or rebellion or an agreement forged to use force and violence in
an uprising of the working class to overthrow constituted authority and
seize the reins of Government itself. Unless action is actually advocated or
intended or contemplated, the Communist is a mere theorist, merely
holding belief in the supremacy of the proletariat a Communist does not
yet advocate the seizing of the reins of Government by it. As a theorist the
Communist is not yet actually considered as engaging in the criminal field
subject to punishment. Only when the Communist advocates action and
actual uprising, war or otherwise, does he become guilty of conspiracy to
commit rebellion.
Legal considerations on the Appeal of the defendant-appellants
All the other defendants were found guilty as accomplices in the crime of
rebellion as charged in the information and were each sentenced to suffer
the penalty of 10 years and one day of prision mayor, with the accessories
provided by law, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs.
Legal Considerations Before proceeding to consider the appeals of the
other defendants, it is believed useful if not necessary to lay dawn the
circumstances or facts that may be determinative of their criminal
responsibility or the existence or nature thereof. To begin with, as We have
exhaustively discussed in relation to the appeal of Hernandez, we do not
believe that mere membership in the Communist Party or in the CLO
renders the member liable, either of rebellion or of conspiracy to commit
rebellion, because mere membership and nothing more merely implies
advocacy of abstract theory or principle without any action being induced
thereby; and that such advocacy becomes criminal only if it is coupled with
action or advocacy of action, namely, actual rebellion or conspiracy to
commit rebellion, or acts conducive thereto or evincing the same. On the
other hand, membership in the HMB (Hukbalahap) implies participation in
an actual uprising or rebellion to secure, as the Huks pretend, the
liberation of the peasants and laboring class from thraldom. By
membership in the HMB, one already advocates uprising and the use of
force, and by such membership he agrees or conspires that force be used
to secure the ends of the party. Such membership, therefore, even if there

Enrile vs salazar
In February 1990, Sen Enrile was arrested. He was charged together with Mr. & Mrs.
Panlilio, and Honasan for thecrime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
murder which allegedly occurred during their failed coup attempt. Enrile was then
brought to Camp Karingal. Enrile later filed for the habeas corpus alleging that the
crimebeing charged against him is nonexistent. That he was charged with a criminal
offense in an information for which no complaint was initially filed or preliminary
investigation was conducted, hence was denied due process; denied his right to bail;
and arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the judge who
issued it first having personally determined the existence of probable cause.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court should affirm the Hernandez ruling.
HELD: Enrile filed for habeas corpus because he was denied bail although ordinarily
a charge of rebellion would entitle one for bail. The crime of rebellion charged against
him however is complexed with murder and multiple frustrated murders the intention
of the prosecution was to make rebellion in its most serious form so as to make the
penalty thereof in the maximum. The SC ruled that there is no such crime as
Rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. What Enrile et al can be
charged of would be Simple Rebellion because other crimes such as murder or all
those that may be necessary to the commission of rebellion is absorbed hence he

should be entitiled for bail. The SC however noted that a petition for habeas corpus

absorbed. The SC noted, however, that there may be a need to modify the rebellion

was not the proper remedy so as to avail of bail. The proper step that should have

law. Considering that the essence of rebellion has been lost and that it is being used

been taken was for Enrile to file a petition to be admitted for bail. He should have

by a lo t of opportunists to attempt to grab power.

exhausted all other efforts before petitioning for habeas corpus. The Hernandez ruling
is still valid. All other crimes committed in carrying out rebellion are deemed