THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF and APPELLEE, VS. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., ACCUSED. AMADO VS. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS and APPELLANTS.

LABRADOR, J.:


This is the
appeal prosecuted by the defendants from the judgment rendered by the Court of
First Instance of Manila, Hon. Agustin P. Montesa, presiding, in its Criminal
Case No. 15841, People vs. Amado V. Hernandez, et al., and Criminal Case No.
15479, People vs. Bayani Espiritu, et al. In Criminal Case No.
15841 (G.R. No. L-6025) the charge is for Rebellion with Multiple Murder,
Arsons and Robberies; the appellants are Amado V. Hernandez, Juan J. Cruz,
Genaro de la Cruz, Amado Racanday, Permin Rodillas and Julian Lumanog; Aquilino
Bunsol, Adriano Samson and Andres Balsa, Jr. were among those sentenced in the judgment appealed from, but they have
withdrawn their appeal. In Criminal Case No. 15479 (G.R.
No. L-6026) the charge is for rebellion with murders, arsons and
kidnappings; theaccused are Bayani Espiritu, Teopista Valerio and Andres Baisa,
Jr.; they all appealed but Andres Baisa, Jr. withdrew his appeal.

The Information filed against defendants Hernandez and others in Criminal
Case No. 15481 alleges:

I. That on or about March 15, 1945, and for some time before the
said date and continuously thereafter, until the present time, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, and the place which they had chosen as the nerve center of
all their rebellious activities in the different parts of the Philippines, the
said accused, conspiring, confederating and cooperating with each other, as well
as with the thirty-one (31) defendants charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 19071,
14082, 14270, 14315 and14344 of the Court of First Instance of Manila (decided
May 11, 1951) and also with others whose whereabouts and identities are still
unknown, the said accused and their other co-conspirators, being then high
ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Communist
Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.), which is now actively engaged in an armed
rebellion against the Government of the Philippines thru acts theretofore
committed and planned to be further committed in Manila and other places in the
Philippines, and of which party the ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayani (H.M.B.)
otherwise or formerly known as the ‘Hukbalahaps’ (Huks),is the armed force, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously help, support, promote,
maintain, cause, direct and/or command the ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan’
(H.M.B.) or the ‘Hukbalahaps’ (Huks) to rise publicly and take arms against the
Republic of the Philippines, or otherwise participate in such armed public
uprising, for the purpose of removing the territory of the Philippines from the
allegiance to the government and laws thereof as in fact the said ‘Hukbong
Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan’ or ‘Hukbalahaps’ have risen publicly and taken arms to
attain the said purpose by then and there making armed raids, sorties and
ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army detachments as well as
innocent civilians, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion,
in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, have then and there
committed acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned
destruction of private and public property to create and spread chaos, disorder,
terror, and fear so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid
purpose, as follows, to wit:

(Enumeration of thirteen
attacks on government forces or civilians by Huks on May 6, 1946, August 6,
1946, April 10, 1947, May 9, 1947, August 19, 1947, June, 1946, April 28, 1949,
August 25, 1950, August 26, 1950, August 25, 1950, September 12, 1950, March 28,
1950 and March 29, 1950.)

II. That during the period of time and under the same
circumstances herein-above indicated the said accused In the above-entitled
case, conspiring among themselves and with several others as aforesaid,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously organized, established, led and/or
maintained the Congress of Labor Organization (CLO), formerly known as the
Committee on Labor Organizations (CLO), with central offices in Manila and
chapters and affiliated or associated labor unions and other ‘mass
organisations’ in different places in the Philippines, as an active agency,
organ, and instrumentality of the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.)
and as such agency, organ., and instrumentality, to fully cooperate in, and
synchronize its activities-as the CLO. . .thus organized, established, led
and/or maintained by the herein accused and their co-conspirators, has in fact
fully cooperated in and synchronized its activities—with the activities of the
‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan’ (HMB) and other organs, agencies, and
instrumentalities of the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.), to thereby
assure, facilitate, and effect the complete and permanent success of the
above-mentioned armed rebellion against the Government of the Philippines.

The information filed against the defendants in Criminal
Case No. 154-79, Bayani Espiritu, Andres Balsa, Jr. and Teopista Valerio,
alleges:

“That on or about the 6th day of
May, 1946,and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto and continuously up to
the present time, in the City of Manila, the seat of the government of the
Republic of the Philippines, which the herein accused have intended to
overthrow, and the place chosen for that purpose as the nerve center of all
their rebellious atrocities in the different parts of the country, the said
accused being then high ranking officials and/or members of the Communist Party
of the Philippines (P.K.P.) and/or of the ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan’
(H.M.B.) otherwise or formerly known as the ‘Hukbalahaps’(HUKS), the latter
being the armed forces of said Communist Party of the Philippines; ha-ving come
to an agreement with the 29 of the31 accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 14071,
l4082, 14270, 14315, 14344 of the Court of First Instance of Manila and decided
to commit the crime of rebellion, and therefore, conspiring and confederating
with all of the 29 accused in said criminal cases, acting in accordance with
their conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, together with many others whose
whereabouts and identities are still unknown up to the filing of this
information, and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously promote, maintain, cause, direct and/or command the ‘Hukbong
Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan’ (HMB) or the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) to rise publicly and take
arms against the Government or otherwise participate therein for the purpose of
overthrowing the same, as in fact, the said ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya NgBayan’ or
Hukbalahaps (HUKS) have risen publicly and taken arms against the Government, by
then and there making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police,
constabulary and army detachments, and as a necessary means to commit the crime
of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, by then and
there committing wanton acts of murder, spoilage, looting, arson, kidnappings,
planned destruction of private and public buildings to create and spread
terrorism in order to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, as
follows, to wit:

(Enumeration of thirteen attacks
on Government forces or civilians by Huks on May 6, 1946, August 6, 1946, April
10, 1947, May 9, 1947, August 19, 1947, June, 1946, April 28, 1949, August
25,1950, August 26, 1950, August 25, 1950,September 12, 1950, March 28, 1950 and
March 29, 1950)

A
joint trial of both cases was held, after which the court rendered the decision
subject of the present appeals.

APPEAL OF AMADO V. HERNANDEZ

After trial the Court of First
Instance found, as against appellant Amado V. Hernandez, the following: (1)that
he is a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines and as such had
aliases, namely, Victor or Soliman; (2) that he was furnished copies of “Titis”,
a Communist publication, as well as other publications of the Party; (3) that he
hold the position of President of the Congress of Labor Organizations; (4) that
he had close connections with the Secretariat of the Communist Party and held
continuous communications with its leaders and its members; (5) that he
furnished a mimeographing machine used by the Communist Party, as well as
clothes and supplies for the military operations of the Huks; (6) that he had
contacted well-known Communists coming to the Philippines and had gone abroad to
the WFTU conference at Brussels, Belgium as a delegate of the CLO, etc. Evidence
was also received by the court that Hernandez made various speeches encouraging
the people to join in the Huk movement in the provinces.

The court also found that there
was a close tie-up between the Communist Party and the Congress of Labor
Organizations, of which Hernandez was the President, and that this Congress was
organized by Hernandez in conjunction with other Huks, namely: Alfredo Saulo,
Mariano Balgos, Guillermo Capadocia, etc.

We will now consider the nature
and character of both the testimonial as well as the documentary evidence,
independently of each other, to find out if the said evidence supports the
findings of the court.

Testimonial Evidence

Amado V. Hernandez took the oath
as member of the Communist Party in the month of October, 1947, at the offices
of the Congress of Labor Organizations at 2070 Azcarraga in the presence of
Guillermo Capadocia, Hamon Espiritu, Pedro Castro, Andres Balsa, etc. As a
Communist he was given the pseudonyms of Victor and Soliman, and received copies
of the Communist paper “Titis”. He made various speeches on the following dates
and occasions:

(1) On August 29, 1948 before the
Democratic Peace Rally of the CLO at Plaza Miranda, in which he announced that
the people will soon meet their dear comrade in the person of Comrade Luis
Taruc.

(2) On September 4, 1948 he
conferred with Hindu Khomal Goufar at the Escolta, at which occasion Balgos told
Goufar that the PKM, CLO and the Huks are in one effort; that the PKM are the
peasants in the field and the Huks are the armed forces of the Communist Party;
and the CLO falls under the TUD of theCommunist Party.

(3) On October 2, 1948 he went
abroad to attend the Second Annual Convention of the World Federation of Trade
Unions and after arrival from abroad a dinner was given to him by the people of
Gagalangin, at which Hernandez delivered a speech and he said that he preferred
to go with the Huks because he felt safer with them than with the authorities of
the Government.

(4) In April, 1949, he made a
speech be-fore a group of tenants in Malabon attacking the frauds in the 1947
elections, graft and corruption in the elections and that if improvement cannot
be made by the ballots, they could be made by bullets; and enjoined the people
to go to the hills and join Luis Taruc, the head of the dissidents in the
Philippines.

(5) On October 2, 1949 he
delivered a speech on the occasion of the commemoration of the World Peace at
the CLO head quarters at 330 P. Campa. He attacked the city mayor and incited
the people to go to Balintawak and see Bonifacio there and thereafter join “our
comrades under the leadership of Luis Taruc”.

(6) On October 16,
1949 he
delivered a speech before a convention of the une mploy-.ed at 330 P. Campa. He
asked the unemployed to approve a resolution urging the Govern-ment to give them
jobs. In conclusion he said that if the government fails to give them jobs the
only way out was to join the revolutionary forces fighting in the hills. He
further said that Mao Tse Tung, leader of the People’s Army in China., drove Chiang Kai Shek from his country, and that Luis
Taruc was also being chased by Government forces run by puppets like Quirino,
etc.

(7) On January 13,
1950
there was another meeting at 330 P. Campa. In his talk Hernandez expressed
regret that two foremost leaders of the CLO, Balgos and Capadocia, had gone to
the field to join the liberation army of the HMB, justifying their going out and
becoming heroes by fighting in the fields against Government forces until the
ultimate goal is achieved.

The above evidence was testified
to by Florentino Diolata who was the official
photographer of the CLO since August, 1948.

On the tie-up between the
Communist Party and the CLO, Guillermo Calayag, a Communist and a Huk from 1942
to 1950, explained:

(1) The ultimate goal of the
Communist Party is to overthrow the present government by force of arms and
violence; thru armed revolution and replace it with the so-called dictatorship
of the proletariat; the Communist Party carries its program of armed over-throw
of the present government by organizing the HMB and other forms of organizations
such as the CLO, PKM, union organizations, and the professional and intellectual
group; the CLO was organized by the Trade Union Division (TUD) of the Communist
Party.

(2) A good majority of the
members of the Executive Committee and the Central Committee of the CLO were
also top ranking officials of the Communist Party; activities undertaken by the
TUD – the vital undertaking of the TUD is to see that the directives coming from
the organizational bureau of the Communist Party can be discussed within the
CLO, especially the Executive Committee. And it is a fact that since a good
majority of the members of the Executive Committee are party members, there is
no time, there is no single time that these directives and decisions of the
organizational department, thru the TUD, are being objected to by the Executive
Committee of the CLO. These directives refer to how the CLO will conduct its
functions. The executive committee is under the chairmanship of accused Amado V.
Hernandez.

(3) The CLO played its role in
the over-all Communist program of armed overthrow of the present government and
its replacement by the dictatorship of the proletariat by means of propaganda –
by propagating the principles of Communism, by giving monetary aid, clothing,
medicine and other forms of material help to the HMB. This role is manifested in
the very constitution of the CLO itself which expounded the theory of classless
society and the eradication of social classes (par. 5, Sec. 1, Art. 2, page 18
of the CLO Constitution contained in the Fourth Annual Convention Souvenir
Program of the CLO, Exh. “V-1579”). Thru propaganda,
the CLO promoted the alms of Communist Party and disseminated Communist ideas
by:

(a) The conspicuous display of
the portrait or pictures of Crisanto Evangelista (Exh. V-1662), founder of Communism in the
Philippines, in the
session hall of the CLO headquarters at 2070 Azcarraga and then at 330 P.
Campa.

(b) The distribution of foreign
communist reading materials such as the World Federation of Trade Union
Magazine, International Union of Students magazine, Voice magazine of the marine
cooks of the CIO, World Committee of the Defenders of the Peace magazine, Free
Bulgaria magazine, Soviet Russia Today magazine and World Federation of
Democratic Youth magazine (Exhs.V-911, V-907, V-910, V-899, V-912, V-853. V/996
and V-967);

(c) The publication and
distribution of some local subversive publications such as the “Titis”, “Bisig”,
Kidlat”, which are Communist Party organs; “The Philippine Labor Demands
Justice” and “Hands Off Korea” authored by accused Amado V, Hernandez;

(d) Principles of Communism were
also propagated thru lectures, meetings, and by means of organization of
committee in the educational department as well as researches in the Worker’s
Institute of the CLO.

(4) The CLO also helped carry out
the pro-gram of the Communist Party thru infiltration of party members and
selected leaders of the HMD within the trade unions under the control of the
CLO. The Communist Party thru the CLO assigned Communist Party leaders and
organizers to different factories in order to organize unions. After the
organization of the union, it will affiliate itself with the CLO thru the
Communist leaders and the CLO, in turn, will register said union with the
Department of Labor; and the orientation and indoctrination of the workers is
continued in the line of class struggle. After this orientation and infiltration
of the Communist Party members and selected leaders of the 1MB with the trade
unions under the control of the CLO is already achieved and the group made
strong enough to carryout its aims, they will begin the sporadic strikes and the
liquidation of anti-labor elements and anti-Communist elements and will create a
so called revolutionary crisis. That revolutionary crisis will be done for the
party to give directives to the HMB, who are fight-ing in the country sides and
made them come to the city gates. The entry of the HMB is being paved by the
simultaneous and sporadic strikes, by ultimate general strikes thru the
management of the CLO.

Important Documents Submitted At
Trial

1. Documents which prove that
Amado V. Hernandez used the aliases “Victor”, or was referred to as “Victor” or
“Soliman”.

(a) Letter dated
April 23,
1950
(signed) by Victor addressed to Julie telling the latter of his sympathies for
other communists, describing his experiences with Communists abroad, telling
Julie to dispose of materials that may be sent by Victor. (Exh. D-2001-2004)

(b) “Paano Maisasagawa, etc.” –
mentions different groups of labor unions of which Victor heads one group,
consisting of the MRRCO, PTLD, PGWU, EMWU and IHWU. (Exh. C-2001-2008) Cadres assigned to different industries.
(Exh. V-40-41)

(c)
Handwritten certificate of Honofre Mangila states that he knew Amado Hernandez
as Victor from co-party members Hugo and Ely. (Exh.
LL)

(d) Letter of Ellas to Ka Eto requesting the
latter to deliver attached letter to Victor. (Exh. 1103)

(e) Saulo’s
letter about his escape, asks Victor why his press statement was not published
in the newspapers. (Exh. C-362) Letter was however
published by Hernandez in the Daily Mirror.

(f) Letter of Taruc to
Maclang directing the latter to give copy of Huk Story to Victor. (Exh. D-463-64)

(g) Notes of
Salome Cruz, Huk courier, stating that she went to Soliman at
Pampanga
St. to bring to the latter
communications from the Communist Party.(Exh. D-1203) That Soliman was given
copies of “Titis”. (Exh. D-1209)

(h) SEC directions to Politburo members, Soliman not
to be involved with Nacionalista Rebels. (Exh.
F-92-93-SEC)

(i) Letter of SEC to Politburo
reporting that Saulo be sent out and Soliman has “tendencies of careerism and
tendency to want to deal with leaders of the party”; that he should be asked to
choose to go underground or fight legally. (Exh.
P-562)

(k) Explanation given by Hernandez why he
did not join Saulo in going underground. (Exh.
V-87)

(1) His election as councilor
until December, 1951. (Exh. V-42, W-9)

(2) His election as President of CLO until August of
following year.(Exh. V-42, W-9)

2. Letters and Messages of
Hernandez.

(a) To Lyden Henry and Harry
Reich, tells Huk still fighting. (Exh. V-80)

(b) To SOBSI Jakarta – that Filipinos are joining
other communist countries of the East. (Exh. V-82)

(c) Press release on Saulo’s disappearance published
by Amado Hernandez. (Exh. W-116-120)

(d) To Hugh and Eddie, July 8,
1949 –
Extends greetings to National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, states that
labor has one common struggle – “the liberation of all the peoples from the
chains of tyranny, fascism and imperialism.” (Exh.
V-259)

(e) To Kas. Pablo and Estrada – talks of
the fight – fight of labor. (Exh. V-85-98)

(f) Appeal to the Women of Asia. (Exh.
V-5-10)

(g) Letter to Julie (Exh.
V-2001-2004)

(h) Letter to Chan Lieu – states
that leaders during the war are being persecuted, like Taruc. Tells of reward
P100,000.00 on Taruc’s head. (Exh. X-85-88)

(i) Letter to John Gates of the Daily
Worker – condemns Wall Street maneuvers; corruption and graft in Quirino
administration, etc. (Exh. V-83)

(j) Cablegram:
CLO join ILWU, commands Harry Bridges, US Communist. (Exh.V-79)

(k) Communication of Hernandez to CLO at MRRCO –
Praises Balgos and Capadocia for joining the Huks. (Exh. V-12-22, V-289)

(l)
“Philippine Labor Demands Justice” -Attacks czars of Wall Street and U.S. Army
and Government. (Exh. V-94)

(m) Letter to Taruc – June
28, 1940.
-States solidarity among the CLO, Huks and FKM. Attacks North
Atlantic
Pact. Praises Mao Tse Tung, (contained in Exh.
V-94)

(n) “Philippines Is Not A Paradise”
-States of a delegation to Roxas attacking unemployment. (Exh. V-90-93)

(o) Article
“Progressive Philippines” – (Exh. V-287)

(p) Article “Hands Off
Korea” – (Exh. V-488-494, ‘495-501,
509-515, 17-25-26)

(q) “Limang Buwang Balak Sa
Pagpapalakas Ng Organisasyon” – (Exh. X-35-38)

(r) Press statement of Hernandez – opposes
acceptance of decorations from Greece by Romulo. (Exh. V-72)

3. Other Activities of
Hernandez.

(a) Hernandez received clothes
from Pres. Lines thru P. Campa, which clothes he sent to the field. Letters show
of sending of supplies to Huks. (Exh. S-383)

(b) Hernandez was asked to furnish port-able
typewriter, which he did furnishto Huks. (Exh.
C-364)

(c) Hernandez brought Taruc’s letter
about facts and incidents about Huks to Bulosan for inclusion In Bulosan’s
book.(Exh. FF-l)

(d) Had conference with Kumar
Goshal, a Hindu, about the Huks and their armed forces. (Photographs, Exh. X-6,
RR-54-55A)

(e) Supervised taking of pictures of
sons of Capadocia and Joven, (Photographs, Exh. T-l, RR-136-138A)

(f) Had knowledge of the going underground of
Capadocia and Balgos and issued press release about their going under-ground.
(Exh. F-91)

(g) Victor
mentioned to continue as con-tact for Chino. (Exh.
C-362)

(j) Taruc’s letter to Maclang shows that
Soliman had sent 7 lessons to Taruc. (Exh. D-451
-451-A)

(k) Associated with follow ranking
Communist leaders.

The Court upon consideration of
the evidence submitted, found (l) that the Communist Party was fully organized
as a party and in order to carry out its aims and policies established a
National Congress, a Central Committee (CC), Politburo (PE), Secretariat (SEC),
Organization Bureau (OB), and National Courier or Communication Division (NCD),
each body performing functions indicated in their respective names; (‘2) that in
a meeting held on August 1.1, 1950 the SEC discussed the creation of a Military
Committee of the Party and a new G-HQ, under which on September 29, 1950 the SEC
organized a special warfare division, with a technological division;(3) that on
May 5, 1950 a body known as the National Intelligence division was created, to
gather essential military intelligence and, in general, all information useful
for the conduct of the armed struggle; (4) that a National Finance Committee was
also organized as a part of the Politburo and answerable to it; (5) that the
country was divided into 10 Recos, the 10th Reco comprising the Manila and
suburbs command; (6) that since November1,1949 the CPP had declared the
existence of a revolutionary situation and since then the Party had gone
under-ground and the CPP Is leading the armed struggle for national liberation,
and called on the people to organize guerrillas and coordinate with the HMB on
the decisive struggle and final armed overthrow of the Imperialist government;
(7) that in accordance with such plan the CPP prepared plans for expansion and
development not only of the Party but also of the EMB, the expansion of the
cadres from 3,600 in July 1950 to 56,000 in September 1951,the HMB from 10,800
in July 1950 to 172,000 in September 1951, et. seq.

Around the month of January, 1950
it was decided by the CPP to intensify 1MB military operations for political
purposes. The Politburo sanctioned the attacks made by the Huks on the
anniversary of the HMB on March 25,
1950. The
HMB attacks that were reported to the PB were those made In May, 1945; June
1946; April 10, 1947; May 9, 1947; August 19, 1947; August 25, 1950; August
26,1950; October 15 and 17, 1950; May 6, 1946; August 6,19^6; April 10, 1947.;
May 9, 1947; August 19, 1947; April 29, 1949; August 25, I950.; August 26, 1950;
September 12, 1950; March 26, 1950; March 29, 1950.

The theory of the prosecution, as
stated in the lower court’s decision, is as follows:

“The evidence does not show that
the defendants in these cases now before this Court had taken a direct part in
those raids and in the commission of the crimes that had been committed. It is
not, however, the theory of the prosecution that they in fact had direct
participation in the commission of the same but rather that the defendants in
these cases have cooperated, conspired and confederated with the Communist Party
in the prosecution and successful accomplishment of the aims and purposes of the
said Party thru the organization called the CLO (Congress of Labor
Organizations).”

The Court found that the CLO is
independent and separate from the CPP, organized under the same pattern as the
CPP, having its own National Congress, a Central Committee (which acts in the
absence of and in representation of the National Congress), an Executive
Committee(which acts when the National Congress and the Executive Committee are
not in session), and seven permanent Committees, namely, of Organization,
Unemployment and Public Relations, Different Strikes and Pickets, Finance,
Auditing, Legislation and Political Action. Members of the Communist Party
dominate the committees of the CLO.

The supposed tie-up between the
CPP and the CLO, of which Hernandez was the President, is described by the court
below in its finding, thus:

“Just how the CLO coordinates its
functions with the Communist Party organ under which it operates was explained
by witness Guillermo S. Calayag, one-time ranking member of the Communist Party
and the CLO, who typewrite the ‘Patnubay sa Education’ from a handwritten draft
of Capadocia, which is one of the texts used in the Worker’s Institute of the
CLO. According to him, the CLO plays its role by means of propaganda, giving
monetary aid, clothing, medicine and other material forms of help to the HMB,
which constitutes the armed forces of the Communist Party. Propaganda is done by
lectures, meetings, and the organization of committees of the educational
department as well as researches at the CLO Worker’s Institute.

“Another way of helping the
Communist Party of the Philippines is by allowing the Communist
Party leaders to act as organizers in the different factories in forming a
union. These Party Members help workers in the factories to agitate for the
eradication of social classes and ultimately effect the total emancipation of
the working classes thru the establishment of the so-called dictatorship of the
proletariat. It is the duty of these Communist Party members to indoctrinate
uninitiated workers in the union to become proselytes of the* Communist Party
ideology. After the right number is secured and a union Is formed under a communist leader, this union is affiliated
with the CLO and this in turn registers the same with the Department of Labor.
The orientation and indoctrination of the masses is continued with the help f
the CLO. The primary objective of the CLO is to create what is called a
revolutionary crisis. It seeks to attain this objective by first making demands
from the employers for concessions which become more and more unreasonable until
the employers would find it difficult to grant the same. Then a strike is
declared. But the strikes are only preparation for the ultimate attainment of
the Communist goal of armed overthrow of the government. After the workers in
the factories have already struck in general at the behest of the Communist
Party thru the CLO, a critical point is reached when a signal is given for the
armed forces of the Communist Party, the HUB, to Intervene and carry the
revolution now being conducted outside to within the city.”

On the basis of the above
findings, the court be-low found Hernandez guilty as principal of the crime
charged against him and sentenced him to Buffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessories
provided by law, and to pay the proportionate amount of the costs.

Our study of the testimonial and
documentary evidence, especially those cited by the Court in its decision and
toy the Solicitor General in his brief, discloses that defendant-appellant Amado
V. Hernandez, as a Communist, was an active advocate of the principles of
Communism, frequently exhorting his hearers to follow the footsteps of Taruc and
join the uprising of the laboring classes against capitalism and more
specifically against America and the Quirino administration, which he dubbed as
a regime of puppets of American imperialism. But beyond the open advocacy of
Communistic Theory there appears no evidence that he actually participated in
the actual conspiracy to overthrow by force the constituted authority.

Hernandez is the founder and head
of the CLO. As such, what was his relation to the rebellion? if, as testified to
by Guillermo S. Calayag, the CLO plays merely the role of propagation by
lectures, meetings and the organization of committees of education by
Communists; if, as stated, the CLO merely allowed Communist Party leaders to act
as organizers in the different factories, to indoctrinate the CLO members into
the Communist Party and proselytize them to the Communist ideology; if, as also
indicated by Calayag, the CLO purports to attain the ultimate overthrow of the
Government first by making demands from employers for concessions until the
employers find it difficult to grant the same, at which time a strike is
declared; if it is only after the various
strikes have been carried out and a. crisis is thereby developed among the
laboring class, that the Communist forces would intervene and carry
the revolution — it is apparent that the CLO was merely a stepping stone in the
preparation of the laborers for the Communists’ ultimate revolution. In other
words, the CLO had no function but that of indoctrination and preparation of the
members for the uprising that would come. It was only a preparatory organization
prior to a revolution, not the revolution itself. The leader of the CLO,
therefore, namely Hernandez, cannot be considered as a leader in actual
rebellion or of the actual uprising subject of the accusation. 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 court below declares that
since November 1949 the Communist Party of the Philippines had declared the
existence of the revolutionary situation and since then the Party had gone
underground, with the CPP leading the struggle for national integration, and
that in the month of January 1950, it was decided by the said Party to intensify
the HMB military operations for political purposes. The court implicates the
appellant Hernandez as a co-conspirator in this resolution or acts of the
Communist Party by his mere membership thereto. We find this conclusion
unwarranted. The seditious speeches of Hernandez took place before November., 1949 when the GPP went underground. The court
below has not been able to point out, nor have We been able to find among all
acts at bid-touted to Hernandez, any single fact or act of his from which it may
be inferred that he took part in the deliberations declaring the existence of a
revolutionary situation, or that he had gone underground. As a matter of fact
the prosecution’s evidence is to the effect that Hernandez refused to go
underground preferring to engage in what they consider the legal battle for the
cause.

We have also looked into the
different documents which have been presented at the time of the trial and which
were confiscated from the office of the Politburo of the Communist Party. The
speeches of Hernandez were delivered before the declaration by the Communist
Party of a state of revolutionary situation in 1949. Neither was it shown that
Hernandez was a member of the Executive Committee, or of the SEC, or of the
Politburo of the Communist Party; so NO presumption can arise that he had taken
part in the accord or conspiracy declaring a revolution. In short, there has
been no evidence, direct or indirect, to relate or connect the appellant
Hernandez with the uprising or the resolution to continue or maintain said
uprising, his participation in the deliberations leading to the uprising being
inferred only from the fact that he was a Communist.

The practice among the top
Communists, as declared by the trial court, appears to have ‘been for important
members, if they intend actually to join the rebellion, to go underground, which
meant leaving the city, disappearing from sight and/or secretly joining the
forces in the field.

The document Exhibit F-562, which
is quoted in the decision, contains the directive of the SEC of September 1,
1950, to
Saulo and Hernandez, which reads:

“11. In view of the new
developments in the city, send out Elias who prefers to work outside. Present
problem of fighting legally to Com. Soliman. If Soliman is prepared for
martyrdom, retain him to fight legally. If not, send him out with Elias. Same
goes with Com. Mino and other relatively exposed mass leaders.”

And the lower court itself found
that whereas Saulo went underground and joined the underground forces outside
the City, Hernandez remained in the City, engaged in the work of propaganda,
making speeches and causing the publication of such matters as the Communist
Party leaders directed him to publish.

That Hernandez refused to go
underground is a fact which is further corroborated by the following reasons
(excuses) given by him for not going underground, namely:(l) that his term of
councilor of the City of Manila was to extend to December, 1951; and (2) that he
was elected President of the CLO for a term which was to end the year 1951.

As a matter of fact the SEC gave
instructions to Hernandez not lo be involved with Nacionalista Rebelns, and
reported to the Politburo that Hernandez “has tendencies of careerism and
tending to want to deal with leaders of the Nacionalista Party instead of
following CPP organizational procedures.”

The court below further found
that Hernandez had been furnishing supplies for the Huks in the field. But the
very document dated December 3,
1949,
Exhibit D-420-422, cited in the decision (printed, p. 49), is to the effect that
clothes and shoes that Hernandez was supposed to have sent have not been
received. It is true that some clothes had been sent thru him to the field, but
these clothes had come from a crew member of a ship of the American President
Lines. He also, upon request, sent a portable typewriter to the SEC or
Politburo. furthermore, a certain Niagara Duplicating
machine received by Hernandez from one Rolland Scott Billiard, a crow member of
the SS President Cleveland, appears later to have been forwarded by him to the
officers of the SEC or the Politburo.

Lastly, it further appears that
Taruc and other CPP leaders used to send notes to appellant Hernandez, who in
turn issued press releases for which he found space in the local papers. His
acts in this respect belong to the category of propaganda, to which he appears
to have limited his actions as a Communist.

The acts of the appellant 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. And his refusal to go underground because of his political
commitments occasioned by his term of election as president of the CLO, and the
impressions caused by his acts on the Communist leaders., to the effect that he
was in direct communication or understanding with the Nacionalista Party to
which he was affiliated, creates in Us the reasonable doubt that it was not his
Communist leanings but his political ambitions, that motivated his speeches
sympathizing with the Huks. For which reason We hold
that the evidence submitted fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he has
conspired in the instigation of the rebellion for which he in held to ac-count
In this criminal case.

The question that next comes up
for resolution la: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 of the
Revised Penal Code? The pertinent provision reads:

“ART. 136. CONSPIRACY AND
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION OR INSURRECTION. – The conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished, respectively, by prision
correccional in its maximum period and a fine “which shall not exceed P5,000 pesos, and by prision correccional in its medium period
and afine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.”

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. 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. As a theorist the
Communist is not yet actually considered as engaging in the criminal field
subject to punishment. Only when the Communist advocates action and actual
uprising, war or otherwise, does he become guilty of conspiracy to commit
rebellion. Borrowing the language of the Supreme Court of the
United
States:

“In our jurisprudence guilt is
personal, and when the imposition of punishment on a status or on conduct can
only be justified by reference to the relationship of that status or conduct to
other concededly criminal activity (here advocacy of violent overthrow), that
relationship must be sufficiently substantial to satisfy the concept of personal
guilt in order to withstand attack under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. Membership, without more, in an organization engaged in illegal
advocacy, it is now said, has not heretofore been recognized by this Court to be
such a relationship. X X X

“What must be met, then, is the
argument that membership, even when accompanied by the elements of knowledge and
specific intent, affords an insufficient quantum of participation in the
organization’s alleged criminal activity, that is, an insufficiently significant
form of aid and encouragement to permit the imposition of criminal sanctions on
that basis. It must indeed be recognized that a person who merely becomes a
member of an illegal organization, by that ‘act’ alone need be doing nothing
more than signifying his assent to its purposes and activities on one hand, and
providing, on the other, only the sort or moral encouragement which comes from
the knowledge that others believe in what the organization is doing. It may
indeed be argued that such assent and encouragement do fall short of the
concrete, practical impetus given to a criminal enterprise which is lent for
instance by a commitment on the part of the conspirator to act in furtherance of
that enterprise. A member, as distinguished from a conspirator, may indicate his
approval of a criminal enterprise by the very fact of his membership without
thereby necessarily committing himself to further It by
any act or course of conduct whatever.” (Scales vs.
United
States, 367
U.S. 203, 6 Led 782)

The most important activity of
appellant Hernandez appears to be the propagation of improvement of conditions
of labor through his organization, the CLO. While the CLO, of which he is the
founder and active president, has communistic tendencies, its activity refers to
the strengthening of the unity and cooperation between labor elements and
preparing them for struggle; they are not yet indoctrinated in the need of an
actual war with or against Capitalism. The appellant was a politician and a
labor leader and it Is not unreasonable to suspect that
his labor activities especially in connection which the CLO and other trade
unions, were impelled and fostered by the desire to secure the labor vote to
support his political ambitions. It Is doubtful whether
his desire to foster the labor union of which he was the head was impelled by an
actual desire to advance the cause of Communism, not merely to advance his
political aspirations.

Insofar as the appellant’s
alleged activities as a Communist are concerned. We have not found, nor has any
particular act on his part been pointed to Us, which would indicate that he had
advocated action or the use of force in securing the ends of Communism, True it
is, he had friends among the leaders of the Communist Party, and especially the
heads of the rebellion, but this notwithstanding, evidence is wanting to show
that he ever attended their meetings, or collaborated and conspired with said
leaders in planning and encouraging the acts of rebellion, or advancing the
cause thereof. Insofar as the furnishing of the mimeograph machine and clothes
is concerned, it appears that he acted merely as an intermediary, who passed
said machine and clothes on to others. It does not appear that he himself
furnished funds or material help of his own to the members of the rebellion or
to the forces of the rebellion in the field.

But the very act or conduct of
his in refusing to go underground, in spite of the apparent desire of the chief
of the rebellion, is clear proof of his non-participation in the conspiracy to
engage in or to foster the rebellion or the uprising.

We next consider the question as
to whether the fact that Hernandez delivered speeches of propaganda in favor of
Communism and in favor1 of rebellion can be considered as a criminal act of
conspiracy to commit rebellion as defined in the law. In this respect, 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 there and then agreed to rise up in arms for the purpose
of obtaining the overthrow of the democratic government as envisaged by the
principles of Communism. To this effect is the following comment of Viada:

“CUESTION 10. El que hace propaganda entre sus
convecinos, induolendoles a que el dia que se anunciara la subasta de consumos
se echaran a la calle para conseguir aunque fuera preciso acudir a la fuerza, el
reparto entre los vecinos ricos solamente, sera responsable de un delito de
conspiracion para la sedicion? – El Tribunal Supremo ha resulto la negativa al
casar cierta sentencia de la Audiencia de Valencia, que entendio lo contrario:
‘Considerando que, con arreglo a lo que dispone el art., 40 del Codigo Penal,
hay conspiracion cuando dos o mas personas se conciertan para la ejecucion de un
delito y resuelven cometerlo; y no constando que existiera ese concierto en
cuanto a los hechos que se refieren en la tercera pregunta del veredicto, pues
en ella solo se hable de los actos de induccion que el procesado realizo, sin
expresar el efecto que la misma produjo en el animo de las personas a quienes se
dirigian, ni si estas aceptaron o no lo quese las propuso, resulta evidente que
faltan los elementos integrantes de la conspiracion, etc.” (S.
de 5 de Julio de 1907, Gaceta de 7 de enero de 1909.)” (Viada, Tomo I,
Codigo Penal, p.152)

In view of all the above circumstances ;,re find that there is no concrete evidence
proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant (Hernandez) actually
participated in the rebellion or in any act of conspiracy to commit or foster
the cause of the rebellion. We are constrained, in view of the these
circumstances, to absolve, as We hereby absolve, the appellant Amado V.
Hernandez from the crime charged, with a proportionate share of the costs
de oficio.

APPEAL OF OTHER
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

All the other defendants were
found guilty as accomplices in the crime of rebellion as charged in the
information and were each sentenced to suffer the penalty of 10years and 1 day
of prision mayor, with the
accessories provided by law, and to pay their proportionate share ofthe coats.

Legal
Considerations. – Before proceeding to consider
the appeals of the other defendants, it is believed useful if not necessary to
lay down the circumstances or facts that may be determinative of their criminal
responsibility or the existence or nature thereof. To begin with, as We have
exhaustively discussed in relation to the appeal of Hernandez, We do not believe
that mere membership in the Communist Party or in the CLO renders the member
liable either of rebellion or of conspiracy to commit rebellion, because mere
membership and nothing more merely implies advocacy of abstract theory or
principle without any action being induced thereby; and that such advocacy
becomes criminal only if it is coupled with action or advocacy of action,
namely, actual rebellion or conspiracy to commit rebellion, or acts conducive
thereto or evincing the same.

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 peasant 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 member-ship, 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.

In
U.S. vs. Vergara, infra, the defendants organized a
secret society commonly known as the “Katipunan”, the purpose of which was the
overthrow the government by force. Each of the defendants on various times
solicited funds from the people of Mexico, Pampanga. The Court held that
the defendants were guilty of conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or
insurrection and not of rebellion or insurrection itself. Thus, the Court ruled
that:

“From the evidence adduced in
this case we are of the opinion that the said defendants are guilty, not of
inciting, setting on foot, or assisting or engaging in rebellion, but rather of
the crime of conspiring to over-throw, put down, and destroy by force the
Government of the United States in the Philippine Islands, and therefore we find
that said defendants, and each of them, did, together with others, in the months
of February and March, 1903, In the Province of Pampanga, Philippine Islands,
conspire to over-throw, put down, and to destroy by force the Government of the
United States in the Philippine Islands,” (U.S. vs. Vergara, et al., 3 Phil.
432, 434.)

JUAN J. CRUZ

The court found him to be a
Communist with various aliases, a member of the Central Committee of the CLO,
member of the Central Committee of the CPP and as such committed to the
establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. To the same effect is the
testimony of Guillermo Calayag.

There Is
no evidence to connect him with the rebel-lion or to the conspiracy to commit
rebellion. He should therefore be absolved of the charges contained In the in-formation.

AMADO RACANDAY

The trial court found him guilty
as a Communist, a Secretary and Executive Committee member of the CLO, a
communications center of the Communist Party, having been found in possession of
letters from Federico Maclang to Salome Cruz, and solicitor of contributions for
the Huks.

Racanday admits being a member of
the Executive Committee of the CLO, Editor of the Kidlat of the Government
Workers Union, receiving copies of the Titis. Calayag testified that he was a
member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party entrusted with the duty
of receiving directives of the Regional Committee of the Communist Party.

The letters found in his
possession are dated February 14, 195O, before the Communist Party went
underground. We have been unable to find the evidence upon which the court bases
its conclusion that he received contributions for the Huks. With these
circumstances in mind We are not convinced beyond
reasonable doubt that as a Communist he took part in the conspiracy among the
officials of the Communist Party to take part and support the rebellion of the
Huks.

We are, therefore, constrained to
absolve him of the charges filed against him.

GENARO DE LA CRUZ

The court found him to be a
Communist since 1945, an officer of an organized Communist branch in
Pasay City, a member of the Central
Committee and treasurer of the CLO. He admitted his membership and his position
as member of the executive committee and treasurer of the CLO, these facts being
corroborated by the witness Guillermo Calayag.

His membership in the Communist
Party dates as far back as the year 1945. As a communist, Genaro de la Cruz
received quotas and monetary contributions coming from the areas under his
jurisdiction, and one time he made a receipt from a member from
Caloocan at the CLO headquarters at 2070
Azcarraga signing the receipt as”Gonzalo” which is one of his aliases. He also
distributed copies of the “Titis” magazine.

While his membership in the
Communist Party plus his having received contributions for the party indicate
that he is an active member, it was not shown that the contributions that he
received from Communist Party members were received around the year 1950 when
the Central Committee of the Communist Party had already agreed to conspire and
go underground and support the Huk rebellion. Under these circumstances We cannot find him guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion
because of the lack of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JULIAN LUMANOG

The court found him to be an
organizer of HKB among the mill workers, solicited contributions for the HMB and
Central Committee member of the CLO as per testimony of Guillermo Calayag.

He admitted that he joined the
Communist Party because he was made to believe that the Party is for the welfare
of the laborers. He also admitted being a member of the Central Committee of the
CLO. Calayag testified that Lumanog organized the HMB units of the Communist
Party in the Lumber Unions and attended a Communist meeting held by Maclang.

Domingo Clarin testified that he
(Julian Lumanog)used to give the money collected by him
to one Nicasio Pamintuan, one of the members of the HMB Special Unit (Trigger
Squad) in Manila for the use of the said unit.

Considering that the HMB was
engaged in a rebellion to overthrow the government, it is evident that by giving
his contributions he actually participated in the conspiracy to overthrow the
government and should, therefore, be held liable for such conspiracy, and should
be sentenced accordingly.

FERMIN RODILLAS

The trial court found that Fermin
Rodillas was a member of the CCP and the CLO; that his activities consisted in
soliciting contributions, in cash and in kind, from city residents for the use
of the HMB, turning over said collections to the Party; that he has also given
asylum to a wanted Hukbalahap at his house at Juan Luna St. Gagalangin, which
house was used as Military post. The above findings of the court are fully
supported by the testimony of Domingo Clarin.

Considering that while he has not
actually taken part in the rebellion, he has shown sympathy with the cause by
soliciting contributions for it and had given shelter to the Huks. We feel that
the court was fully justified in finding him guilty, but We hold that he should
be declared liable merely as a co-conspirator in the crime of conspiracy to
commit rebellion, and should be sentenced accordingly.

BAYANI ESPIRITU

This appellant was found by the
court to be a Communist, he having admitted membership in the Communist Party
since 1945; that his duties as a Communist was to help in the office of the
national Finance Committee, assorting papers and written documents; that
sometimes he accompanied the purchaser of medicines, shoes, papers, foodstuffs
and clothing to be given to the Huks; that he is a member of the Communication
Division of the CPP in Manila, in charge of distribution of letters or
communications; that he admits having written to Salome Cruz, courier of the
Communist Party, when he asked for his necessities, such as money and shoes,
etc.

The facts found by the court are
sufficiently supported “by the communications and evidence submitted by the
prosecution. The exhibits show that he was in constant communication with the
Communists, serving them as courier. His oath as a member of the Communist Party
was submitted in court and in it he admits obedience to all orders of the Party
and to propagate the stability of the PKP .

Considering that the PKP was
engaged in an actual uprising against the constituted Government and that Bayani
Espiritu was in constant communication with the Communist Party and served it as
courier, We believe that the court was fully justified
In finding him guilty. However, We believe that not
having actually taken up arms in the uprising he may only be declared guilty of
conspiracy to commit rebellion.

TEOPISTA VALERIO

The court below found that this
appellant joined the Communists in 1938 in San Luis, Pampanga, under Casto
Alejandrino, who later became her common-law husband; that her aliases are
“Estrella” and “Star”; that she was found in possession of various documents
written to top Communists like Aiejandrino, Lava and Romy, as well as a letter
from Taruc congratulating her for the delivery of a son.

Jose Taguiang testified that she
was a member of the Provincial Committee of the CPP In Nueva Ecija, later
Chairman of the Finance Department, and then promoted to Finance Officer of the
Central Luzon Committee, Alicia Villegas, a Huk courier, testified that she
delivered letters from the mountains to Teopista Valerio, who was in turn also a
courier.

Without considering the close
relationship that she had with top Communist Casto Alejandrino, We are satisfied
that she herself was aside from being a Huk courier, also a Huk, a member of the
HMD from 1942 to 1951. As she was a Communist and at the same time a member of
the HMB, and considering that the HMB was engaged in an uprising to uproot the
legitimate government, there cannot be any question that she was in conspiracy
with the other members of her Party against the constituted government. We hold,
therefore, that the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty
of conspiracy to commit rebellion.

DEFENDANTS NOT INCLUDED IN
DECISION

In Crim. Case No. 15841 (G.R.
No. L-6025)
the charge against Guillermo Capadocia, Mariano P. Balgos, Alfredo B. Saulo and
Jacobo Espino was dismissed because they have not been apprehended at the time
of the trial.

PEOPLE VS. EVANGELISTA,
57 PHIL., 354 AND REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1700, DISTINGUISHED

In the case at bar the
prosecution is for actual rebellion which consists in rising publicly and taking
arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to
said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippines, or any part
thereof, etc., a crime defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code; whereas
Evangelista was charged and convicted for inciting to rebellion under Art. 138, Revised Penal Code (formerly Sec. 2, Act No. 292). As
the specific charge against appellants is that of rising up in arms in actual
rebellion against the Government, they cannot be held guilty of inciting the
people to arms under Article 138, which is a different offense.

On the other hand, Rep. Act 1700,
known as the Anti-Subversion Act, which penalizes membership in any organization
or association committed to subvert the Government, cannot be applied to the
appellants because said t was approved on June 20, 1957 and was not in force at
the time of the commission of the acts charged against appellants (committed
1945-1950); the Anti-Subversion Act punishes participation or membership in an
organization committed to overthrow the duly constituted Government, a crime
distinct from that of actual rebellion with which appellants are
charged.

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, in Criminal Case No. 13341
(G.R. No. L-6025) defendants-appellants Amado V. Hernandez., Juan J.Cruz, Armado
Racanday and Genaro de la Cruz are absolved from the charges contained in the
information, with their proportionate share of the costs de oficio. The
defendants-appellants Julian Lumanog and Fermin Rodillas in Criminal Case No.
15841 (G.R. No. L-6025) and the defendants-appellants
Bayani Espiritu and Teopista Valerio in Criminal Case No. 15479 (G.R. No.
L-6026) are hereby found guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion,
as defined and punished in Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code, and each and
everyone of them is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years, four
months and 21 days of prision
correccional, and to pay a fine of P5,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
and to pay their proportionate share of the costs. So
ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo,
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.