Title
People vs. Herdez
Case
G.R. No. L-6025
Decision Date
May 30, 1964
Accused, including Amado Hernandez, charged with rebellion; Hernandez absolved for lack of direct involvement, others convicted of conspiracy.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6025)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Case Background
    • Two consolidated appeals from CFI Manila:
      • G.R. No. L-6025 (Crim. Case No. 15841): People vs. Amado V. Hernandez, et al. – charged with rebellion with multiple murder, arson and robbery.
      • G.R. No. L-6026 (Crim. Case No. 15479): People vs. Bayani Espiritu, et al. – charged with rebellion with murder, arson and kidnapping.
    • Defendants and appellants:
      • In L-6025: Amado V. Hernandez, Juan J. Cruz, Genaro de la Cruz, Amado Racanday, Permin Rodillas, Julian Lumanog.
      • In L-6026: Bayani Espiritu, Teopista Valerio.
  • Trial and Lower Court Findings
    • Evidence against Hernandez:
      • High-ranking officer of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and President of the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO); aliases “Victor”/“Soliman.”
      • Delivered speeches urging people to join Hukbalahap (HMB) forces; disseminated party literature (“Titis,” “Bisig,” etc.).
      • Provided material support (mimeograph machine, clothes) and maintained communications with HMB leaders.
    • Evidence against other appellants:
      • Cruz, de la Cruz, Racanday – CPP/CLO officers, received quotas, distributed subversive publications.
      • Rodillas, Lumanog – solicited contributions for HMB; provided shelter and funds to Huks.
      • Espiritu, Valerio – Courier functions for CPP/HMB communications; held party finance/communications posts.
    • Lower court verdicts:
      • Hernandez, Cruz, de la Cruz, Racanday convicted as principals in rebellion; Lumanog, Rodillas, Espiritu, Valerio as accomplices.

Issues:

  • Does mere membership in the CPP and CLO, or open advocacy of Communist theory, amount to conspiracy or actual rebellion?
  • Does the evidence establish beyond reasonable doubt that appellants agreed to use force or participated in planning an armed uprising against the Philippine Government?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.