NON-MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

RULE IN TERRORISM AND

REBELLION
MARLO CAMPANILLA·SUNDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2017

In Lagman vs. Medeldea, G.R. No. 231658, July 04, 2017, the Supreme Court stated that
there is nothing in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code and RA 9372 which states that
rebellion and terrorism are mutuality exclusive of each other or that they cannot co-exist
together. RA 9372 does not expressly or impliedly repeal Article 134 of the Code. And
while rebellion is one of the predicate crimes of terrorism, one cannot absorb the other as
they have different elements.

With due respect to the Supreme Court, rebellion is a predicate crime of terrorism, hence,
the latter absorbs the former. In fact Section 49 of RA No. 9372 has adopted the rule on
double jeopardy. Under this provision, when a person has been prosecuted under a
provision of this Act, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge
sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded
to the charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to
another prosecution for any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense
charged under this Act.

This legislative rule against double jeopardy is not compatible with the Lagman case on
non-mutually exclusive rule.
==================================================================================

Marlo Campanilla under the double jeopardy rule conviction for terrorism is a bar for
prosecution for rebellion. under non-mutually exclusive rule conviction for terrorism is not a bar
for prosecution for rebellion since both crimes can co-exist because they are not mutually
exclusive of each other. In sum conviction for terrorism will not exclude conviction for rebellion
and vice versa.