Facts:
Amado V. Hernandez and several others were indicted by the prosecuting arm of the Philippine Government for the crime of rebellion combined with multiple acts of murder, arson, and robberies. The intricate events leading to the Supreme Court revolved around Hernandez’s leadership and activities within the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO), suspected of being instrumentalities of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP).
The case proceeded through the lower courts where Hernandez was found guilty and sentenced. Hernandez filed a motion for bail after his conviction but before his appeal could be heard by the Supreme Court. This application for bail was previously denied mainly due to the gravity of the charges, which under Philippine law could merit capital punishment.
Issues:
The legal issues focused on whether rebellion can legally be combined with murder, arson, or robbery, thereby forming a complex crime warranting a heavier penalty under Philippine law.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court eventually ruled that rebellion cannot legally be complexed with other offenses like murder, arson, or robbery. According to the Court, acts of murder, pillage, and arson committed to achieving the goals of a rebellion are not punishable separately but are seen as part of the rebellion itself, hence deserving of only one penalty—the one prescribed for rebellion.
Doctrine:
The Supreme Court defined the doctrine that rebellion, as a crime, absorbs all other common crimes committed in its pursuit, such as murder and arson.
Class Notes:
– Rebellion under Philippine law involves rising publicly and taking arms against the government to accomplish certain political objectives.
– Under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, rebellion is not complexed with other crimes committed in furtherance thereof.
– Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which addresses complex crimes, cannot be applied when the separate crimes constitute or are merely a necessary means for committing rebellion.
– The appropriate penalty is thus only that for rebellion, which cannot exceed prision mayor and a fine of P20,000.
Historical Background:
The context of the case lies in the political landscape of the Philippines during the 1950s, where communist insurgency and affiliated labor movements were regarded as threats to national security. The vigorous crackdown on alleged perpetrators, of which Hernandez was one, illustrated the government’s stance against the communist rebellion. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case, however, clearly distinguished between the singular crime of rebellion and the inappropriate linkage of ancillary common crimes to it, guiding future jurisprudence and law enforcement practice in handling similar cases.
Leave a Reply