ART.

139 : SEDITION
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NARCISO UMALI, ET AL., defendants.
NARCISO UMALI, EPIFANIO PASUMBAL and ISIDRO
CAPINO, defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. L-5803
November 29, 1954

Ponente: Montemayor, J.

Nature of the case: Appeal

Brief:

This is an appeal of the decision of the Court of First

Instance (RTC) of Quezon province on the conviction of
accused Narciso Umali, Epifanio Pasumbal, and Isidro

Capino of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple

murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery.
Facts:
1. Narciso Umali and Marcial Punzalan were old time
friends and belonged to the same political faction. In the
general elections of 1947 Umali campaigned for Punzalan
who later was elected Mayor of Tiaong. In the elections of
1949 Punzalan in his turn campaigned and worked for
Narciso Umali resulting in the latter's election as
Congressman. However, these friendly relations between
the two did not endure.
2. On the eve of the election, at the house of Pasumbals
father, then being used as his electoral headquarters,
Congressman Umali instructed Pasumbal to contact the
Huks through Commander Abeng so that Punzalan would
be killed. Pasumbal complying with the order of his Chief
(Umali) went to the mountains which were quite near the
town and held a conference with Commander Abeng. It
would seem that Umali and Pasumbal had a feeling that
Punzalan was going to win in the election the next day, and
that his death was the surest way to eliminate him from the
electoral fight. Pasumbal reported to Umali that
Commander Abeng was agreeable to the proposition and
even outlined the manner of attack.
2. Then the elections of 1951 (November 13) approached
and Punzalan ran for re-election. To oppose him, and to clip
his political wings and definitely blast his ambition for

continued power and influence in Tiaong, Umali picked

Epifanio Pasumbal, his trusted leader.

Police had left Tiaong to go to Lucena, the capital, to report

the results of the election to the Governor.

3. The result of the elections plainly showed that Punzalan

was the political master and leader in Tiaong. He beat
Pasumbal by an overwhelming majority of 2,221 votes.

6. As to defendants Pasumbal and Capino, their

participation in and responsibility for the raid was duly
established and was witnessed and described by several
persons, including policemen who saw Pasumbal and
Capino actually taking part in firing at the house with
automatic weapons and hand grenades.

4. The following day after the elections, after waiting for

sometime, Abeng and his troops numbering about fifty,
armed with garlands ans carbines, arrived. Congressman
Umali, holding a revolver, was seen in the company of Huk
Commander Torio and about 30 armed men. Afterwards, a
raid was staged in the town of Tiaong, Quezon, between
8:00 and 9:00 in the evening of November 14, 1951, by
armed men. Said raid took place resulted in the burning
down and complete destruction of the house of Mayor
Marcial Punzalan including its content valued at P24,023;
the house of Valentin Robles valued at P10,000, and the
house of one Mortega, the death of Patrolman Domingo
Pisigan and civilians Vicente Soriano and Leocadio Untalan,
and the wounding of Patrolman Pedro Lacorte and five
civilians; that during and after the burning of the houses,
some of the raiders engaged in looting, robbing one house
and two Chinese stories;

5. Fortunately, however, and apparently unknown to the

attackers and those who designed the raid, at six o'clock
that morning of November 14th Punzalan and his Chief of

7. As to Umali, his criminal responsibility was also

established, though indirectly. Since no one saw him take
part in the firing and attack on the house of Punzalan; nor
was he seen near or around said house. Nevertheless, we
have the testimony of Amado Mendoza who heard him
instructing Pasumbal to contact Commander Abeng and
ask him to raid Tiaong and kill Punzalan.
8. Assuming for a moment as they claim, that the two
(Umali and Pasumbal) were not in Tiaong at the
commencement of the raid between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m.,
and during the whole time the raid lasted, and that they
were all that time in the home of Pasumbal in Taguan, still,
according to their own evidence, they were informed by
persons coming or fleeing from Tiaong that there was a raid
going on there, and that some houses were burning. As a
matter of fact, considering the promixity of Taguan to
Tiaong, a distance of about seven kilometers and the
stillness and darkness of the night, the fire and the glow
produced by the burning of three houses and the noise
produced by the firing of automatic weapons and the

explosion of the hand grenades and bottles of gasoline,

could and must have been seen and heard from Taguan.
The natural and logical reaction on the part of Umali and
Pasumbal would have been to rush to Tiaong, see what had
really happened and then render help and give succor to
the stricken residents, including their own relatives.
This strange act and behaviour of the two men, particularly
Umali, all contrary to impulse and natural reaction, and
what other people would ordinarily have done under the
circumstances, prompted the trial court in its decision to
repeat the old saying "The guilty man flees even if no
one pursues, but the innocent stands bold as a lion.

Issue:
Whether or not the defendants-appellants were guilty of
the crime of rebellion or sedition.

P10,000; Yao Cabon in the amount of P700; Claro Robles in

the amount of P12,800; Pocho Guan in the amount of P600;
the heirs of Domingo Pisigan in the amount of P6,000; the
heirs of Locadio Untalan in the amount of P6,000;
Patrolman Pedro Lacorte in the amount of P500; Lazaro
Ortega in the amount of P300; Hilarion Aselo in the amount
of P300; Calixto Rivano in the amount P50; Melecio Garcia
in the amount of P60; and Juanito Lector in the amount of
P90, each to pay one fifteenth of the costs, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency due to the
nature of the principal penalty that is imposed upon them
SC:
The decision
modification:

of

the

RTC

is

AFFIRMED

with

some

The crimes committed are, therefore, those of sedition,

multiple murder, arson, frustrated murder and
physical injuries.

ACTIONS OF THE COURT:

RTC:
Defendants-appellants were found guilty of the complex
crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated
murder, arson and robbery, and sentencing each of them
to "life imprisonment, other accessories of the law, to
indemnify jointly and severally Marcial Punzalan in the
amount of P24,023; Valentin Robles in the amount of

COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS:

We are convinced that the principal and main, though not
necessarily the most serious, crime committed here was
not rebellion but rather that of sedition. The
purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in rising
publicly and taking up arms was not exactly against
the Government and for the purpose of doing the things

defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal code under

rebellion. The raiders did not even attack the Presidencia,
the seat of local Government. Rather, the object was to
attain by means of force, intimidation, etc. one
object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge
upon the person or property of a public official,
namely, Punzalan was then Mayor of Tiaong. Under
Article 139 of the same Code this was sufficient to
constitute sedition.

The killing may, however, be qualified by treachery, the

raiders using firearms against which the victims were
defenseless, with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength.

As regards the crime of robbery with which appellants were

charged and of which they were convicted, we are also of
the opinion that it was not one of the purposes of the raid,
which was mainly to kidnap or kill Punzalan and destroy his
house. The robberies were actually committed by only
some of the raiders, presumably dissidents, as an
afterthought, because of the opportunity offered by the
confusion and disorder. For these robberies, only those who
actually took part therein are responsible, and not the
three appellants herein.

Considering that, assuming for the moment that there is no

such complex crime of rebellion with murder, etc., and that
consequently appellants could not have been legally
charged with, much less convicted of said complex crime,
and the information should therefore, be regarded as
having charged more than one offense, contrary to Rule
106, section 12 and Rule 113, section 2 (e), of the Rules of
Court, but that appellants having interposed no
objection thereto, they were properly tried for and
lawfully convicted if guilty of the several, separate crimes
charged therein, we have decided and we rule that the
appellants may properly be convicted of said several
and separate crimes, as hereinafter specified. We feel
particularly supported and justified in this stand that we
take, by the result of the case, namely, that the prison
sentence we impose does not exceed, except perhaps in
actual duration, that meted out by the Court below, which
is life imprisonment.

With respect to the crime of multiple frustrated murder,

while the assault upon policeman Pedro Lacorte with a
hand grenade causing him injuries resulting in his blindness
in one eye, may be regarded as frustrated murder; the
wounding of Ortega, Anselo, Rivano, Garcia and Lector
should be considered as mere physical injuries.
The murders may not be qualified by evident premeditation
because the premedition was for the killing of Punzalan.

Appellants were charged with and convicted of the complex

crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder,
arson and robbery. Is there such a complex crime of
rebellion with multiple murder, etc?

SUPREME COURT RULING:

In conclusion, we find appellants guilty of sedition,

multiple murder, arson, frustrated murder and
physical injuries. For the crime of sedition each of the
appellants
is
sentenced
to
5
years
of prision
correctional and to pay a fine of P4,000; for each of the
three murders, each of the appellants is sentenced to life
imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of each victim in
the sum of P6,000; and for the arson, for which we impose
the maximum penalty provided in Article 321, paragraph 1,
of the Revised Penal Code, for the reason that the raiders in
setting fire to the buildings, particularly the house of
Punzalan they knew that it was then occupied by one or
more persons, because they even and actually saw an old
lady, the mother of Punzalan, at the window, and in view of

the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, each of the

appellants is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay
the indemnities mentioned in the decision of the lower
court. It shall be understood, however, the pursuant to the
provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code the
duration of all penalties shall not exceed 40 years. In view
of the heavy penalties already imposed and their long
duration, we find it unnecessary to fix and impose the
prison sentences corresponding to frustrated murder and
physical injuries; however, the sums awarded the victims
(Lacorte, Ortega, Anselo, Rivano, Garcia and Lector), by the
court below will stand. With these modifications, the
decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs.