Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6025-26)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Amado V. Hernandez, G.R. Nos. L-6025-26, July 18, 1956, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court. Defendant-appellant Amado V. Hernandez (with co‑defendants named in the amended information) had been charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with rebellion “with multiple murder, arsons and robberies” and, after trial, was sentenced to life imprisonment; his appeal to this Court remained pending when he sought bail. Hernandez filed a petition for bail originally on December 28, 1953 (denied by this Court February 2, 1954), renewed June 26, 1954, and again on December 22, 1955; the present resolution deals with the renewed petition.The amended information alleged that Hernandez and others, acting as officers/members or agents of the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO) and in concert with the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB), rose and took arms against the Government and that “as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion” they committed specified murders, arsons and robberies. The legal controversy before the Court was twofold: whether those described murders, arsons and robberies are separate crimes complexed with rebellion under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, or whether they are “ingredients” or necessary means of rebellion (Articles 134–135), and, consequently, whether Hernandez was charged with a capital offense for purposes of bail.
This Court had earlier declined to grant bail for Hernandez pending clarification of that doctrinal question; after further study the Court resolved the legal issue and addressed the bail motion. The petition for bail was presented dire...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under the allegations of the amended information, is the crime charged against Amado V. Hernandez a capital offense so as to bar bail (procedural question of bailability)?
- As a substantive matter, can the crime of rebellion be complexed with murders, arsons and robberies alleged to have been committed “as a necessary means” for the rebellion, so that Article 48 of the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)