ARTICLE 135

PENALTY FOR REBELLION,

INSURRECTION OR COUP D'ETAT.

SANTOS, RACHEAL B.
-ANY P ERS O N W H O P R O MO T E S , MA I N TA I N S , O R H E A D S R E B E L L I O N O R
I N S U R RE CT I O N S H A L L S U F F E R T H E P E N A LT Y O F R E C L U S I O N P E R P E T U A .

- A N Y P ERS O N ME R E LY PA RT I C I PAT I N G O R E X E C U T I N G T H E CO MMA N D S O F

O T H E RS I N A RE BE L L I O N S H A L L S U F F E R T H E P E N A LT Y O F R E C L U S I O N
T E MP O RA L .

- A N Y P ERS O N W H O L E A D S O R I N A N Y MA N N E R D I R E C T S O R C O MMA N D S
O T H E RS TO U N D ERTA K E A C O U P D ' E TAT S H A L L S U F F E R T H E P E N A LT Y O F
R E C L U S I O N P E RP E T U A .

- A N Y P ERS O N I N T H E G O V E R N ME N T S E RV I C E W H O PA RT I C I PAT E S , O R
E X E C U T E S D I RE CT I O N S O R C O MMA N D S O F O T H E R S I N U N D E RTA K I N G A
C O U P D 'E TAT S H A L L S U F F E R T H E P E N A LT Y O F P R I S I O N MAY O R I N I T S
MA X I MU M P E RI O D .

- A N Y P ERS O N N O T I N T H E G O V E R N ME N T S E RV I C E W H O PA RT I C I PAT E S , O R
I N A N Y MA N N E R S U P P O RT S , F I N A N C E S , A B E T S O R A I D S I N U N D E RTA K I N G A
C O U P D 'E TAT S H A L L S U F F E R T H E P E N A LT Y O F R E C L U S I O N T E MP O R A L I N
I T S MA X I MU M P E R I O D .
WHEN THE REBELLION, INSURRECTION,
OR COUP D'ETAT SHALL BE UNDER THE
COMMAND OF UNKNOWN LEADERS, ANY
PERSON WHO IN FACT DIRECTED THE
OTHERS, SPOKE FOR THEM, SIGNED
RECEIPTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
ISSUED IN THEIR NAME, AS PERFORMED
SIMILAR ACTS, ON BEHALF OF THE
REBELS SHALL BE DEEMED A LEADER OF
SUCH A REBELLION, INSURRECTION, OR
COUP D'ETAT.
W H O A R E L I B A L E F O R R E B E L L I O N , I N S U R R E C T I O N A N D / O R C O U P D ’ E TAT ?

1) THE LEADERS

A ) A N Y P E R S O N W H O ( 1 ) P R O M O T E S , ( 2 ) M A I N TA I N S , O R ( 3 ) H E A D S A
REBELLION OR INSURRECTION

B) ANY PERSON WHO (1) LEADS, (2) DIRECTS, OR (3) COMMANDS

O T H E R S TO U N D E RTA K E A C O U P D ’ E TAT

2 ) T H E PA RT I C I PA N T S

A ) A N Y P E R S O N W H O ( 1 ) PA RT I C I PAT E S O R ( 2 ) E X E C U T E S T H E
COMMANDS OF OTHERS IN A REBELLION, OR INSURRECTION.

B ) A N Y P E R S O N I N T H E G O V E R N M E N T S E RV I C E W H O ( 1 ) PA RT I C I PAT E S ,
OR (2) EXECUTES DIRECTIONS OR COMMANDS OF OTHERS IN
U N D E RTA K I N G A C O U P D ' E TAT.

C ) A N Y P E R S O N N O T I N T H E G O V E R N M E N T S E RV I C E W H O ( 1 )
PA RT I C I PAT E S , ( 2 ) S U P P O RT S , ( 3 ) F I N A N C E S , ( 4 ) A B E T S O R
( 5 ) A I D S I N U N D E RTA K I N G A C O U P D ' E TAT.
 WHO SHALL BE DEEMED THE LEADER OF THE
REBELLION, INSURRECTION OR COUP D'ETAT IN
CASE HE IS UNKNOWN?

• When the rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat

shall be under the command of unknown leaders,
any person who in fact directed the others, spoke
for them, signed receipts and other documents
issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on
behalf of the rebels, shall be deemed a leader of
such rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat. (Art.
135, 6th par.)
 (U.S. VS. DEL ROSARIO, 2 PHIL. 127)

• It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never took

the oath of allegiance to, or that they never recognized the
Government.

• Such a defense would be nothing less than a negation of the

right of the Government to maintain its existence and
authority against a certain class of the population.
 U.S. VS. RAVIDAS, ET AL. (4 PHIL. 273)

• Facts: The only fact disclosed by the evidence adduced in the case is that Alejo Ravidas knew that there
were insurgents in a place called Manila, within the jurisdiction of the town of Agusan, of which he was
municipal president, and his duty as such president required him to report this fact to the senior officer of
the province, but he did not do so, nor did he take any steps to pursue or denounce the insurgents or to
protect the people from their probable depredations.

• Held: However reproachful the silence of the defendant may be, it does not in itself constitute the crime of
insurrection. Act No. 292 (now Art. 134) defines and specifies the acts which shall be punished as
insurrection, but among those acts, the silence of the defendant is not enumerated. This silence is not an
act; it is, rather, an omission.

A public officer must take active part to be liable.

Mere silence or omission is not punishable in rebellion.
(PEOPLE VS. AQUINO AND CORTEZ, 108 PHIL. 814)

• Those who killed persons in pursuance of the movement to

overthrow the government are liable for rebellion only.
• The proper charge against persons who kill not because of
any personal motive on their part but merely in pursuance
of the movement to overthrow the duly constituted
authorities, would be rebellion and not murder.
 IS THERE A COMPLEX CRIME OF REBELLION
WITH MURDER AND OTHER COMMON CRIMES?

• The Supreme Court decided this question in the negative.

• The reason for the ruling is stated, as follows: "One of the means by which rebellion may be
committed, in the words of Art. 135, is by "engaging in war against the forces of the
government" and "committing serious violence" in the prosecution of said "war." These
expressions imply everything that war connotes, namely: resort to arms, requisition of
property and services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damage
to property, physical injuries and loss of life, x x x

• Being within the purview of "engaging in war" and "committing serious violence," said resort
to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction of life and property, constitutes not two
or more offenses, but only one crime — that of rebellion plain and simple.
 ACTS COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF
REBELLION ARE ABSORBED IN REBELLION.

• The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast movement of

men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in
furtherance of rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed
absorbed in one single crime of rebellion.
 MEMBERSHIP IN A REBEL ORGANIZATION
DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY
CRIMINAL ACTS AS ABSORBED IN
REBELLION.

• "Membership of appellant in a rebel organization, by itself,

does not automatically qualify his criminal acts as absorbed
in the crime of rebellion which carries a lighter penalty
under the law. The burden was on the appellant to
demonstrate conclusively that his criminal acts were
committed in furtherance of rebellion. (People vs.
Lovedioro, 250 SCRA 389, 395 (1995)
 REBELLION, AND NOT MURDER, WHERE
KILLINGS ARE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED

• People vs. Hon Simeon Ferrer, et al., G.R. No. L-32613-14, December
29,1972.
• There is no question likewise that the killing of Apolonio Ragual by the
appellant and his companions who were also members of the NPA
upon orders of Ka Daniel was politically motivated. They suspected
Ragual as an informer of the PC. In fact, after he was killed, they left a
letter and a drawing on the body of Ragual as a warning to others not
to follow his example.
 K I L L I N G , R O B B I N G , E T C . F O R P RI VAT E P U R P O S E S
O R P R O F I T, W I T H O U T A N Y P O L I T I C A L
MO T I VAT I O N , W O U L D B E S E PA R AT E LY P U N I S H E D
AND WOULD NOT BE ABSORBED IN THE REBELLION

• If the killing, robbing, etc., during the rebellion,

were done for private purposes or profit, without
any political motivation, the crimes would be
separately punished. Thus, in People vs.
Geronimo, et al., 100 Phil. 90, accused was
convicted of rebellion and murder, two separate
offenses.
 POLITICAL CRIMES AND COMMON
CRIMES, DISTINGUISHED

• Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as
well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a
political purpose.
• The decisive factor is the intent or motive. If a crime usually regarded
as common, like homicide, is perpetrated for the purpose of removing
from the allegiance "to the Government the territory of the Philippine
Islands or any part thereof," then said offense becomes stripped of its
"common" complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the
crime of rebellion, the former acquired the political character of the
latter.
 N O T E :

It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never took the oath of allegiance to, or that they never recognized the Government. Such a defense would
be nothing less than a negation of the right of the Government to maintain its existence and authority against a certain class of the population.

Those who killed persons in pursuance of the movement to overthrow the government are liable for rebellion only and not murder.

There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder and other common crimes. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion re absorbed in rebellion.

Membership of appellant in a rebel organization does not automatically qualify criminal acts as absorbed in rebellion. It carries a lighter penalty under
the law.

Where killings are politically motivated, it is rebellion, not murder.

Killing, robbing, etc. for private purposes or profit, without any political motivation, would be separately punished and would not be absorbed in the
rebellion.

Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose.
T HA N K Y OU !