FRANCISCO R. CARINO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (1ST DIVISION), RESPONDENTS.

This
is an appeal by way of certiorari from the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated October 18, 1958 in the above entitled case, affirming
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila finding the
accused Francisco Carino guilty as accomplice in the crime of
rebellion, and sentencing him to suffer two (2) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day of prision correctional and to pay a fine in the sum, of P2,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

In an information dated April 28, 1952, filed in the Court of First
Instance of Manila, the accused was charged with the crime of rebellion
with murders, arson, robberies and kidnappings, for having, as a high
ranking officer and/or member of the Communist Party of the Philippines
and of the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan otherwise known as the
Hukbalahaps (Huks), agreed in conspiracy with 31 other who were charged
with the same crime in other criminal cases then pending in the Court
of First Instance of Manila, for the purpose of overthrowing the
Government and disrupting its activities.

The specific acts of rebellion which the accused is
alleged to have committed in conspiracy with other members of the
Communist Party, between the period from May 6, 1946 to September 12,
1950, are:

1. The ambush on May 6, 1946 of the 10th MPC
   Company in Barrio Sta. Monica, Aliaga, Nueva Ecija; resulting in the
   death of 10 enlisted men;

2. The raid on August 6, 1946 of the Municipal Building of Majayjay, Laguna;
3. The
   ambush on April 10, 1947 of 14 enlisted men in Barrio San Miguel na
   Munti, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, during which Lt. Pablo Cruz and Pvt.
   Santiago Mercado were killed;

4. The raid on the poblacion of Laur, Nueva Ecija of May 9, 1947;
5. The ambush on August 19, 1947 of a detachment of the 155th Company, in San Miguel, Bulacan, killing two officers thereof;
6. The raid on Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija of June 1946;
7. The
   ambush on April 25, 1947 of Mrs. Aurora Aragon Quezon,and party at
   Barrio Salubsob, Bongaboh, Nueva Ecija, resulting in the death of said
   Mrs. Quezon and other members of her party;

8. The raid on Camp Macabulos, Tarlac, Tarlac, on August 25, 1950;
9. The raid on Sta. Cruz, Laguna, of August 26, 1950;
10. The raid on Arayat, Pampanga, of August 25, 1950;
11. The
    seizure of September 12, 1950 of an army scout car in Barrio Mapalad,
    Arayat, Pampanga and the murder of two TPs on the said occasion;

12. The attack on the headquarters of a PC detachment of March 28, 1950, at Montalban, Rizal; and
13. The raid on San Pablo, Laguna, of March 29, 1950, resulting in the death of Major Alikbusan of the government armed forces.

Although the defendant-appellant expressly admitted the truth of the
allegations of the commission of robberies, murders, arsons,
kidnappings, etc., in the manner and form alleged and on the dates
stated in the information, he vigorously denied any participation
therein.

It appears from the evidence, as found by the Court of Appeals, that the accused is a close friend of Dr. Jesus

Lava (a top leader of the Communists and a wanted man with a price on
his head) who was his classmate in the high school, and who later on
became the godfather of the first child of the accused. Appellant’s
wife and children were treated successfully by Dr. Lava in 1939 and
1943 for various illnesses free of charge and appellant believed that
his wife and children owe their lives to Dr. Lava. One night in the
year 1946, Dr. Lava arrived in the house of the accused asking for
shelter, stating that he was being persecuted by certain politicians
from Bulacan, on suspicion that he had something to do with the killing
of Mayor Roxas of Bulacan, Bulacan. Appellant gave Lava accommodation
for the night, and early the following morning Lava left. The next time
that the appellant heard from Dr. Lava was in May, 1949, when he
received a note from the latter asking for some cigarettes, powdered
milk and canned goods. The note was brought by a boy of 12 or 15 years,
named Totoy, and through him the accused sent the needed supplies.
Thereafter, every now and then, the same boy brought to appellant
similar notes from Dr. Lava, requesting for food and supplies, which
theaccused furnished in as small amounts as he could send.

In the first note of Dr. Lava, appellant was instructed
to sign “Turko” all notes to be sent by him to the former and to
address them to “Pinang” in order to conceal their respective
identities. This exchange of notes between them and the furnishing of
supplies and foodstuffs by appellant to Dr. Lava lasted from 1949 until
April, 1952, when the accused was arrested and detained.

The Court of Appeals also found that appellant, as a
ranking employee of the National City Bank of New York was approached
by a prominent member of a special unit of the Communist Party,
entrusted with the carrying out of raids, hold-ups, etc. for the
purpose of raising funds,and through his assistance the amount of
$6,000, part of the, proceeds or loot of said special unit, was changed
into pesos and then delivered to the treasurer of the communists; that
appellant also assisted on or about October 12, 1950, two top-level
communists in opening current accounts in the National City Bank of New
York although their initial deposit was below P2,000, the minimum
required by the bank. (However it was not shown that the persons helped
were known by appellant to be communist and the funds intented to carry
out the rebellion.)

Sometime in 1949, appellant was present at a banquet given
by the Communists in honor of Amado V. Hernandez, one of the supposed
top-level members of the organization, on which occasion he was
introduced as a communist to Florentino Diolata, who posed as a
communist but who, in reality, was a person secretly planted by the
Constabulary as a spy; that while being introduced the accused stated
that he was at the command of his comrades for any assistance for the
advancement and promotion of their common purpose.

Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code defines accomplices, thus:

“Art. 18. Accomplices.-Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

In the case of People vs.
Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38, 49, we held as an essential condition to the
existence of complicity that there be not only a relation between the
acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged
as an accomplice, but that the latter, with knowledge of the criminal
intent, cooperated with the intention of supplying material or moral
aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way.

So
that there are two elements required, in accordance with the definition
of the term accomplice given in the Penal Code in order that a person
may be considered an accomplice to a criminal act, namely; that: he
take part in the execution of the crime by previous and simultaneous
acts and that he intend by said acts to commit or take part in the
execution of the crime.

The crime of rebellion or insurrection has been defined
as follows:

“Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection.–How committed.-The
crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by 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
Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or
other armed forces, or of depriving the Chief Executive or the
Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives. (Revised Penal Code.)

In the case at bar the appellant did not take up arms
against the government. Neither was he a member of the Hukbalahap
organization. The Court of Appeals also found that he did not openly
take part in the commission of the crime above defined by any other
acts without which said crime would not have been committed. (Decision,
p. 7) Said the Court of Appeals:

“There is no clear and conclusive evidence that the
accused is a member of the Communist Party or of its sister
organization, the ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan’, but there can be no
doubt that he is a sympathizer of the communists and helped them by
giving supplies to Dr. Jesus Lava, and by sending notes to him, knowing
that he is a top-level communist with a high price oil his head. And
not only that. The accused also helped a top-level communist in
changing six thousand dollars. ($6,000) into pesos. in the National
City Bank of New York, of which he was a ranking official with the
designation of Pro Manager. He also introduced to the bank two
top-level communists and helped them in opening checking accounts in
the bank where they deposited money used in the activities of the
Communist Party.

“By extending such help to well-known members of the
Communist Party and knowing that the avowed purpose of said party is to
overthrow the government, the accused, by means of overt acts gave them
aid, comfort, and assistance and indirectly helped them in their fight
against the Government. Of course the accused did not take direct
participation in the acts alleged in the information, nor did he
directly force or induce the communists to commit such acts; neither
did he openly take part in the commission of the acts of rebellion by
another act without which the act of rebellion would not have been
accomplished. However, the acts done by him as above stated constitute
acts of cooperation with the communists in their primordial purpose of
overthrowing the government and such acts naturally have contributed to
some extent in the advancement and promotion of their purpose. ‘By such
cooperation knowingly extended by him, he is liable as an accomplice in
the crime of rebellion as found by the trial court.”

We cannot agree to the above conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the above-mentioned acts of appellant constitute acts of cooperation in the execution of the acts of overthrowing the government.
If appellant’s acts may be considered an indirect help or aid in the
rebellion, which we positively doubt, the same cannot constitute
previous or simultaneous acts of uprising or rebellion. In the crime of
treason any act of giving comfort or moral aid may be criminal,
but such is not the case with rebellion or insurrection where the Code
expressly declares that there must be a public uprising and the taking
up of arms in rebellion or insurrection. The acts of sending or
furnishing cigarettes and food supplies to a famous Huk does not prove
intention to help him in commiting 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 relation 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
commiting the crime of insurrection or rebellion. The law is to the
effect that good faith is to be presumed. No presumption of the
existence of a criminal intent can arise from the above acts which are
in themselves legitimate and legal. Said acts are by law presumed to be
innocent acts while the opposite has not been proved.

But granting, for the sake of argument, that appellant
had the criminal intent of aiding the communist 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. (People vs. Tamayo, supra.) We,
therefore, find that the supposed acts found by the Court of Appeals to
have been committed by the appellant do not necessarily and
legitimately lead to the conclusion that he performed said acts
precisely with the criminal intent of helping in the execution or the
carrying out of the rebellion of insurrection.

For the foregoing considerations, we declare that the guilt
of appellant as an accomplice in the crime of rebellion or insurrection
as charged in the information has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt, his supposed acts not having been shown to be acts of direct
cooperation in the execution of the crime, nor have they been induced
by a criminal intent, nor were they shown to be sufficiently
efficacious to make, appellant guilty as accomplice in the crime
charged.Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and
the appellant absolved from the charge contained in the information.
With costs de oficio.

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