TITLE III - CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER – CASES

UNITED STATES V. CONSTANTINO, ET AL., 2 PHIL. 693

FACTS: Pedro Constantino and others were charged with the crime of insurrection. Constantino
together with his armed band of 15 to 40 men armed with bolos and rifles entered the town of
Binangonan and kidnapped Don Jose Suares, the municipal president; Don Jose Tupas, provincial
secretary, who happened to be in the town; Don Sixto Angeles, president of the board of health; Don
Lazaro Gergaray, and an American whose name does not appear. These people were led along the
road toward the town of Carmona; but when the party had covered about half the distance to the
town three American soldiers were encountered. In the course of the fight which ensued, and as a
result of the confusion thereby produced, the prisoners succeeded in escaping from their captors.

ISSUE: WON the defendants committed rebellion/insurrection or inciting to rebellion/insurrection.

RULING: No, There is no evidence that the kidnapers had any other purpose (INTENT) in view or
that they had the specific intent of inciting anyone to rebellion, or of promoting a rebellion. The act
of kidnapping might perhaps constitute the crime of illegal detention or some offense of a similar
character, but it can not by any possibility constitute the crime of insurrection. This act of simple
kidnapping, without evidence as to previous or attendant circumstances, without data of any kind,
in short, to indicate the motive or purpose for which the act was committed does not constitute
rebellion/insurrection or inciting as such.

CARINO V. PEOPLE, 7 SCRA 900

FACTS: Francisco Carino was found guilty as accomplice in the crime of rebellion by the Court of
Appeals. He allegedly Aided, comforted and given assistance to his friend Dr. Lava a top leader of
the communists and a wanted man as well as other members of the communist party by helping
them through his job at a bank, in opening current accounts.

ISSUE: WON Carino is guilty as an accomplice for the crime of rebellion.

RULING: The act of sending or furnishing cigarettes and food supplies to a famous Huk does
not prove intention to help him in committing rebellion or insurrection. Neither is the act of
having $6,000 changed to Philippine money or in helping Huks to open accounts, by themselves
show an intent or desire to participate or help in an uprising or rebellion. Appellant's work was as a
public relations officer of the bank of which he was an employee, and the work above indicated
performed by him was a part of his functions as an employee of the bank. These acts by themselves
do not and cannot carry or prove any criminal intent of helping the Huks in committing the crime of
insurrection or rebellion. But granting, for the sake of argument, that appellant had the criminal
intent of aiding the communists in their unlawful designs to overthrow the Government, the
assistance thus extended by him may not be considered EFFICACIOUS enough to help in the
successful prosecution of the crime of insurrection or rebellion so as to make him an accomplice
therein. Francisco Carino was absolved from the charge.
 PEOPLE V. HERNANDEZ ET AL., 99 PHIL 515

FACTS: Amado Hernandez, Executive Committee Chairman of the Committee on Labor

Organizations (CLO), the propaganda arm of the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP). He was
accused of propagating in writing subversive communist reading materials as well propagating
principles of communism thru lectures and meetings as well as speeches on several occasions. He
was also allegedly instrumental in infiltrating communist party members into trade unions in
different factories.

ISSUE:
1. WON Hernandez and others are guilty of the crime of rebellion.
2. Does his or anyone's membership in the Communist Party per se render Hernandez or
any Communist guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion under the provisions of Article
136.
3. We next consider the question as to whether the fact that Hernandez delivered speeches
of propaganda in favor of Communism and in favor of rebellion can be considered as a
criminal act of conspiracy to commit rebellion as defined in the law.

RULING:

1. No. Although an active advocate of the principles of Communism, no evidence that he

actually participated in the actual conspiracy to overthrow by force the constituted
authority. Hernandez, as President of the CLO therefore, by his presidency and leadership of
the CLO cannot be considered as having actually risen up in arms in rebellion against the
Government of the Philippines, or taken part in the conspiracy to commit the rebellion as
charged against him in the present case; he was merely a propagandist and indoctrinator of
Communism, he was not a Communist conspiring to commit the actual rebellion by the
mere fact of his presidency of the CLO. The acts of the Hernandez as thus explained and
analyzed fall under the category of acts of propaganda, but do not prove that he actually and
in fact conspired with the leaders of the Communist Party in the uprising or in the actual
rebellion, for which acts he is charged in the information. It was not his Communistic
leanings but his political ambitions, that motivated his speeches sympathizing with the
Huks. For which reason the Court hold that the evidence submitted fails to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that he has conspired in the instigation of the rebellion for which he is
held to account in this criminal case.

2. THE ADVOCACY OF COMMUNISM OR COMMUNISTIC THEORY AND PRINCIPLE IS NOT

TO BE CONSIDERED AS A CRIMINAL ACT OF CONSPIRACY UNLESS TRANSFORMED OR
CONVERTED INTO AN ADVOCACY OF ACTION. ONLY WHEN THE COMMUNIST
ADVOCATES ACTION AND ACTUAL UPRISING, WAR OR OTHERWISE, DOES HE BECOME
GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT REBELLION. In the very nature of things, mere
advocacy of a theory or principle is insufficient unless the communist advocates action,
immediate and positive, the actual agreement to start an uprising or rebellion or an
agreement forged to use force and violence in an uprising of the working class to overthrow
constituted authority and seize the reins of Government itself. Unless action is actually
advocated or intended or contemplated, the Communist is a mere theorist, merely holding
belief in the supremacy of the proletariat a Communist does not yet advocate the seizing of
the reins of Government by it. 
 3. The mere fact of his giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism would not make
him guilty of conspiracy, because there was no evidence that the hearers of his speeches of
propaganda then and there agreed to rise up in arms for the purpose of obtaining the
overthrow of the democratic government as envisaged by the principles of
Communism. (WALANG EXPRESS EFFECT NA NA PRODUCE SA MINDS NG NAKIKINIG )
On the other hand, membership in the HMB (Hukbalahap) implies participation in an actual
uprising or rebellion to secure, as the Huks pretend, the liberation of the peasants and laboring
class from thraldom. By membership in the HMB, one already advocates uprising and the use of
force, and by such membership he agrees or conspires that force be used to secure the ends of the
party. Such membership, therefore, even if there is nothing more, renders the member guilty of
conspiracy to commit rebellion punishable by law. And when a Huk member, not content with his
membership, does anything to promote the ends of the rebellion like soliciting contributions, or
acting as courier, he thereby becomes guilty of conspiracy, unless he takes to the field and joins in
the rebellion or uprising, in which latter case he commits rebellion.

PEOPLE V. GERONIMO ET AL., 100 PHIL 90

FACTS: The accused-appellant a member of HUK together his companion; ambushed and fired
upon the party of Mrs. Aurora A. Quezon and her PC escort whom they considered as their enemies
resulting in the killing of Mrs. Aurora A. Quezon, Baby Quezon, Mayor Bernardo of Quezon City and
other members of PC escort on April 28, 1949.On August 26, 1950, about one hundred armed HUKS
with intent to gain robbed the Cashier of the Provincial -Treasury, Mr. Vicente Reventar from his
house to the Provincial Capitol and at the point of guns forced him to open the Treasury Vault and
took therefrom Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000). The accused-appellant charged with complex
crime as rebellion with murders, robberies,   and kidnapping.

ISSUE: WON the crime committed by him is the complex crime of rebellion with murders,
robberies, and kidnappings, or simple rebellion.

RULING: Not every act of violence is deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely because it
was committed simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion. If the killing, robbing, etc.
were done for private purposes or profit, without any political motivation, the crime would be
separately punishable and would not be absorbed by the rebellion and the individual misdeed
could not be taken with the rebellion to constitute a complex crime, for the constitutive acts and
intent would be unrelated to each other. The individual crime would not be a means necessary for
committing the rebellion, as it would not be done in preparation or in furtherance of the latter.

ENRILE VS. SALAZAR, G.R. NO. 92163 JUNE 5, 1990

SAME DECISION WITH THE PREVIOUS CASE. NOT EVERY ACT OF VIOLENCE IS DEEMED
ABSORBED IN THE CRIME OF REBELLION SOLELY BECAUSE IT WAS COMMITTED
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH OR IN THE COURSE OF THE REBELLION. PERO SINABI NG COURT NA
HOPEFULLY, CONGRESS WILL PERCEIVE THE NEED FOR PROMPTLY SEIZING THE INITIATIVE IN
THIS MATTER, WHICH IS PROPERLY WITHIN ITS PROVINCE. KASI DURING THAT TIME (LATE 80’s
to EARLY 90’s NPA REBELLION AND CORY MUTINEES) NOT EVEN THE CROWDED STREETS OF
OUR CAPITAL CITY SEEM SAFE FROM SUCH UNSETTLING VIOLENCE THAT IS DISRUPTIVE OF THE
PUBLIC PEACE AND STYMIES EVERY EFFORT AT NATIONAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY. THERE IS AN
APPARENT NEED TO RESTRUCTURE THE LAW ON REBELLION, EITHER TO RAISE THE PENALTY
THEREFOR OR TO CLEARLY DEFINE AND DELIMIT THE OTHER OFFENSES TO BE CONSIDERED AS
ABSORBED THEREBY, SO THAT IT CANNOT BE CONVENIENTLY UTILIZED AS THE UMBRELLA FOR
EVERY SORT OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN IN ITS NAME. MEANING INABSORVE NG CRIME
NG REBELLION ANG OTHER CRIMES.

FACTS: Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers
led by Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant
issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, with the crime of rebellion
with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period of the failed
coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. The information against Sen. Enrile et
al. charged murder and frustrated murder committed on the occasion, but not in furtherance, of
rebellion.

ISSUE: WON Sen. Enrile committed rebellion with the separate crimes of murder and multiple
frustrated murder or the crime committed is simple rebellion only?

RULING: The Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciated in People vs. Hernandez, the
questioned information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco and
Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging simple rebellion only.

PONCE ENRILE V. AMIN, G.R. NO. 93335, SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 (IN RELATION TO THE
PREVIOUS CASE)

FACTS: Sen. Enrile was accused of violating PD 1829 (PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF

APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS) by unlawfully, feloniously,
willfully and knowingly obstruct, impede, frustrate or delay the apprehension of said Ex.-Lt. Col.
Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan by harboring or concealing him in his house. Respondent Judge Amin
sustained the charge of violation of PD No. 1829 notwithstanding the rebellion case filed against the
petitioner on the theory that the former involves a special law while the latter is based on the
Revised Penal Code or general law. The prosecution in this Makati case alleges that the petitioner
entertained and accommodated Col. Honasan by giving him food and comfort on December 1, 1989
in his house. Knowing that Colonel Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen. Enrile allegedly did not
do anything to have Honasan arrested or apprehended. And because of such failure the petitioner
prevented Col. Honasan’s arrest and conviction in violation of Section 1 (c) of PD No. 1829.

ISSUE: WON the harboring or concealing by Sen. Enrile of Col. Honasan (VIOLATION OF PD 1829)
is absorbed or a component element of the crime of complexed rebellion charged against Sen.
Enrile.

RULING: Jurisprudence tells us that acts committed in furtherance of the rebellion though crimes in
themselves are deemed absorbed in the one single crime of rebellion. In this case, the act of
harboring or concealing Col. Honasan is clearly a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an
act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot therefore be made the basis of a separate charge.
In the light of the Hernandez doctrine the prosecution’s theory must fail. The rationale remains the
same. All crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, which are mere
components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of
rebellion and cannot be isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves. THE THEORY OF
ABSORPTION in rebellion cases must not confine itself to common crimes but also to offenses
under special laws which are perpetrated in furtherance of the political offense. to press it
further would be to place him in double jeopardy. Sen. Enrile can not be tried separately under PD
1829 in addition to his being prosecuted in the rebellion case. The information was quashed by the
Court.
 BAYLOSIS V. CHAVEZ, JR., 202 SCRA 405 (Prision Mayor lang ang Rebellion while Reclusion
Temporal to perpetua ang PD 1866 Section 1 par 3)

"political crimes are committed by the best of patriots,"

FACTS: Rafael Baylosis and Benjamin de Vera, together with one Marco Palo, was charged with
violation of PD 1866 Section 1 par 3 (CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION
OR DISPOSITION, OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND
Baylosis and De Vera all known high
IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES").

ranking officers of the Communist Party of the Philippines, and its military arm, the New Peoples
Army, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, did then and there
willfully , unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession, control and custody, in furtherance
of, or incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion/subversion, firearms and
ammunition, explosives.

ISSUE: WON Baylosis and De Vera can be prosecuted for violation of PD 1866 or that such crime
is absorbed by rebellion.

RULING: The petitioners' invocation of the doctrine of double jeopardy as an argument against the
constitutionality of PD 1866 is equally futile. They maintain that a person held liable under PD 1866
can still be made to answer subsequently for rebellion.