cannot be isolated and charged as separate crimesthemselves.
People vs. Dasig
One afternoon, Pfc. Manatad, Pfc. Tizon and Pfc. Catamorawere tasked by their commanding officer to man the trafficat 2 streets of Mandaue City. While on duty, Catamora saw8 persons, including accused Nunez, acting suspiciously.He noticed one of them giving instructions to two of themen to approach Manatad. Catamora followed the twomen, but sensing that they were being followed, the menwent to the middle of the road and engage Catamora to agun battle. Catamora then heard a series of shots from theother group and afterwards, he saw Manatad sprawled onthe ground. Catamora sought refuge at a nearby buildingfrom where he saw 2 persons take Manatad’s gun and firedat him to make sure he was dead. The group then fled thescene.Later on, 2 teams of police officers were tasked to conductsurveillance on a suspected safehouse of members of theNPA sparrow unit in Cebu City. When they reached theplace, the group saw Rodrigo Dasig and Nunez trying toescape. The two men were apprehended, and theirfirearms were confiscated. Dasig confessed in the hospitalthat he and the group of Nunez killed Manatad and that heand Nunez were members of the Sparrow unit. He wasfound guilty of murder with direct assault.HELD: Dasig should be prosecuted for rebellion. Appellantnot only confessed voluntarily his membership with theSparrow unit, but also his participation and that of hisgroup in the killing of Manatad. The Sparrow unit is theliquidation squad of the NPA with the objective of overthrowing the duly constituted government. It istherefore not hard to comprehend that the killing of Manatad was committed as a means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends of the NPA. As such, appellant is liablefor rebellion and not murder with direct assault upon aperson in authority.Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion though crimesin themselves are deemed absorbed in one single crime of rebellion. The act of killing a police officer, knowing toowell that the victim is a person in authority, is a merecomponent of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of rebellion. It cannot be made the basis of a separatecharge.
People vs. Lovedioro
Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along astreet when a man suddenly walked beside him, pulled agun from his waist, aimed the gun at the policeman’s rightear and fired. The man who shot Lucilo had 3 othercompanions with him, one of whom shot the fallenpoliceman four times as he lay on the ground. After takingthe Lucilo’s gun, the man and his companions boarded atricycle and fled. The accused-appellant was charged andwas convicted of the crime of murder.HELD: In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, notmurder, it becomes imperative for our courts to ascertainwhether or not the act was done in furtherance of apolitical end. The political motive of the act should beconclusively demonstrated. If no political motive isestablished and 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 membershipin an organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellionwould not, by and of itself, suffice.Appellant’s contentions regarding the reason for the killingof Lucilo are couched in terms so general and non-specificthat they offer no explanation as to what contribution thekilling would have made towards the achievement of theNPA’s subversive aims. Thus, in the absence of clear andsatisfactory evidence pointing to a political motive for thekilling of SPO3 Lucilo, the trial court correctly convictedappellant of the crime of murder.
People v. Silongan (2003)
The RTC convicted appellants Abdila and MacapagalSilongan, Awal, Lamalan, Alon, Manap, and Pasawilan of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Serious IllegalDetention for having abducted at gunpoint and detainedbusinesman Saldana and 3 others. Saldana was made towrite a letter to his wife to pay a ransom in the amount of P12 million. He was separated from the others and wastransferred from one hideout to another. He was detainedfor 6 months. Appellants then surrendered as MILF andMNLF rebels. They argue that the fact that they are rebelsurrenderees precludes conviction for the common crime of kidnapping. Citing People v. Hernandez, they contend thatcommon crimes are absorbed in rebellion. Therefore, thetrial court erred when it convicted them of kidnapping forransom.HELD: The argument that the crime was politicallymotivated and that consequently, the charge should havebeen rebellion and not kidnapping is without merit. TheCourt cited the case of
Office of the ProvincialProsecutor of Zamboanga Del Norte vs. CA
, where it washeld that the political motivation for the crime must beshown in order to justify finding the crime committed to berebellion. Merely because it is alleged that appellants weremembers of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front or of theMoro National Liberation Front does not necessarily meanthat the crime of kidnapping was committed in furtheranceof a rebellion. The evidence adduced is insufficient for afinding that the crime committed was politicallymotivated. Neither have the appellants sufficiently proventheir allegation that the present case was filed againstthem because they are rebel surrenderees. This court hasinvariably viewed the defense of frame-up with disfavor.Like the defense of alibi, it can be just as easily concocted.
People v. Oliva (2001)
Oliva alias “Ka Ambo” and Salcedo alias “Ka Tony” and 2others came to the house of Magbojos. The victim was thenhogtied and was brought to the mountains. The victim wasnever seen alive again. Two or three years after, oneTubieron told the victim’s brother where the victims’remains were buried by his abductors. The RTC convictedOliva alias “Ka Ambo” and Salcedo alias “Ka Tony” guilty of murder (not kidnapping with murder) for killing Magbojos.Oliva asserts that he should have been charged withrebellion instead of “kidnapping with murder”
consideringthat he is a member of the Communist Party of thePhilippines and a Commander of the NPA. He claims that
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer16