Case Summary (G.R. No. L-6025-26)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner-Appellant: Amado V. Hernandez et al.
Respondent: The People of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General.
Key Dates
– December 28, 1953: Initial bail petition filed.
– February 2, 1954: Court denies that petition.
– June 26, 1954 and December 22, 1955: New and renewed bail petitions filed.
– July 18, 1956: Resolution granting bail is promulgated.
Applicable Law
– Constitution of 1935 (in force at the time of decision)
– Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
• Article 134 (definition of rebellion)
• Article 135 (penalties for rebellion)
• Article 48 (penalty for complex crimes)
Factual Allegations
The amended information alleges that beginning March 15, 1945 and continuously thereafter, Hernandez and co-accused conspired in Manila to support and direct armed rebellion against the Republic. As officers or members of the CLO (an instrumentality of the PKP), they are accused of “willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously” assisting the HMB by coordinating labor-union and “mass-organization” activities with armed operations. To facilitate the rebellion, they allegedly committed multiple murders, arsons, robberies, pillage, looting, and destruction of property.
Legal Issue
Whether the violent acts—murder, arson, and robbery—alleged as “necessary means” to rebellion may be treated as separate felonies forming a complex crime under Article 48, or whether they merge into one offense of simple rebellion.
Court’s Analysis of the Complex‐Crime Rule
– Article 48 provides that when one offense is a necessary means to commit another, only the maximum penalty for the most serious crime is imposed.
– Rebellion (Article 134) inherently includes “engaging in war” and “committing serious violence,” and Article 135 specifically lists war-type acts (arming, requisitions, violence, destruction).
– Therefore, killings, arsons, and robberies committed in furtherance of rebellion are integral elements of a single political offense, not separate felonies.
Precedent on Rebellion and Treason
– Philippine and U.S. cases have long rejected “complex” rebellion or treason with homicide. Overt violent acts are deemed ingredients of the political crime, not independent offenses.
– Key decisions: U.S. v. Lagnason, People v. Prieto, Labra, Alibotod, Vilo, Roble, Delgado, Adlawan, Suralta, Navea, and Crisologo, consistently holding that murder or physical injuries charged as overt acts of treason cannot be punished separately or aggregated under Article 48.
Comparative and Policy Considerations
– The old Spanish Penal Code and most modern jurisdictions distinguish political offenses from ordinary crimes, treating violent “means” as absorbed in the political offense.
– Legislative history in the Philippines (Act 292 of 1901, Revised Penal Code of 1930) reflects leniency toward rebellion relative to the harsher Spanish regime.
– The policy of “social justice” and modern labor legislation unde
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-6025-26)
Procedural History and Context
- Petition for bail filed by defendant‐appellant Amado V. Hernandez on June 26, 1954, renewed December 22, 1955.
- Earlier petition (December 28, 1953) denied by this Court on February 2, 1954.
- Lower court conviction: rebellion “complexed” with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies; sentence: life imprisonment.
- Core controversy: whether rebellion may be “complexed” with other crimes, and whether bail should be granted pending appeal.
Facts as Alleged in the Amended Information
- Time and place: On or about March 15, 1945, continuing to present, City of Manila and other Philippine provinces.
- Defendants, officers/members of the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO) and affiliates of the Communist Party (P.K.P.), conspired with Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB or “Huks”) to wage armed rebellion.
- Acts charged “as a necessary means” of rebellion:
• Multiple armed raids, sorties, ambushes against police, constabulary, army detachments, and civilians
• Murders of police, soldiers, civilians
• Pillage, looting, plunder, extortion of “contributions” from inhabitants
• Arson, destruction of private and public property to spread terror and chaos - Legal classification: crime of rebellion “with multiple murder, arsons and robberies.”
Statutory Framework
- Article 48, Revised Penal Code (Penalty for Complex Crimes):
• When a single act constitutes two or more felonies—or one offense is a necessary means to commit another—the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum period applies. - Article 134, Revised Penal Code (Definition of Rebellion):
• “Rising publicly and taking arms against the Government” to remove territory, armed forces, or powers from allegiance. - Article 135, Revised Penal Code (Penalties for Rebellion):
• Prision mayor (8–12 years) and fine ≤ P20,000 for promoters, maintainers, or high‐ranking participants; prision mayor (6–8 years) for mere participants; no separate penalty for ancillary acts.
Issue
- May the crime of rebellion be “complexed” with murder, arson, and robbery committed “as a necessary means” to further that rebellion, thus invoking Article 48 and exposing defendants to the higher penalty for the “most serious” offense?
Holdings
- Acts of murder, arson, rob