THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE LAVA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; LAMBERTO MAGBOO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; SIMEON G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., DEF…

These are appeals from the joint decision of the Court of First
Instance of Manila in its Criminal Cases Nos. 14071, 14082, 14270, 14315 and
14344.

In Criminal Case No. 14071, the defendants were Jose Lava,
Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Iluminada Calonje y
Adriano, Rosario C. viuda de Santos and Angel Baking.  The appeal from the decision in this case is
now in G. R. No. L-4974 before this Court.

In Criminal Case No. 14082, the defendants were Lam­berto Magboo,
Nicanor Razon, Sr., Esteban Gonzales y la Torre, Marcos Medina, Cesario Torres,
Rosenda Canlas Reyes, and Arturo Baking y Calma.  The appeal from the decision in this ease is
now in G. R. No. L-4975 before this Court.

In Criminal Case No. 14270, the defendants were Simeon Gutierrez
y Rodriguez, Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez, and Victorina Rodriguez y Gutierrez,
and Marciano de Leon.  The appeal from
the decision in this case is now in G. R. No. L-4976 before this Court.

In Criminal Case No. 14315, the defendants were Honof­re D.
Mangila and Cenon Bungay y Bagtas.  The
appeal from the decision in this case is now in G. R. No. L-4977 before this
Court.

In Criminal Case No. 14344 the defendants were Magno Pontillera
Bueno, Nicanor Capalad, Rosalina Quizon, Pedro Vicencio, Julia Mesina, Felipe
Engreso, Elpidio Acuño Adime, Josefina Adelan y Abusejo, Conrado Domingo,
Aurora Garcia, and Naty Cruz.  The appeal
from the decision in this case is now in G. R. No. L-4978 before this Court.

All the above-named defendants were charged with having committed
the complex crime of rebellion with murders and arsons under an identical
information, filed in each of the five cases, which reads as follows:

“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 they have
chosen for that purpose as the nerve center of all their rebellious activities
in the different parts of the country, the said accused being then high ranking
officers or otherwise members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (PKP)
of which the ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan’ (HMB) otherwise or formerly known
as the Huk­balahap (Huks), is its armed forces, having come to an agreement and
decided to commit the crime of rebellion, and therefore, conspiring and
confederating together, acting with many more 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 ng Bayan 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, 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:

“(1)   On May 6, 1946, the 10th MPC Co. led by First
Lt. Mamerto Lorenzo while on patrol duty in the barrio of Santa Monica, Aliaga,
Nueva Ecija, was with evident premeditation on the part of the huks ambushed
and treacherously attacked by a band of well-armed dis­sidents or rebels.  Ten enlisted men of the MP company were
killed.  First Lt. Mamerto Lorenzo was
captured and behead­ed by the rebels.

“(2)   On August
6, 1946, a group of more than 30 Huks under the leadership of
Salvador Nolasco armed with guns of different calibers raided the municipal
building of Majayjay, Laguna.  They were
able to get one Garand, one carbine, one Thompson GMG, and one pistol.  They also took one typewriter and stationery
(NR Laguna, dated Sept. 2, 1946).

“(3)   On April 10, 1947, 14 EM under the command of
Lt. Pablo C. Cruz, while on their way to investigate a holdup in the barrio of
San Miguel na Munti, Tala­vera, Nueva Ecija, were with evident pre­meditation
and treachery on the part of the Huks ambushed and fired upon by Huks armed
with 30-caliber rifles, machine guns, and grenades.  Lt. Pablo Cruz and Pvt. Santiago Mercado were
killed and 6 others were wounded.

“(4)   On May
9, 1947 Huks numbering around 100 under Lomboy and Liwayway raided
the town proper of Laur and forced Municipal Treasurer Jose A. Viloria to open
the treasury safe and obtained therefrom more than P600.  Policeman Fermin Sanchez was taken by the
bandits with one Spring­field rifle. 
Bandits robbed the towns-people of their money, personal belongings,
rice and carabaos (WITR May 10, 1947).

“(5)   On August 19, 1947, Capt. Jose Gamboa, First
Lt. Celestino Tiansec, and Second Lt. Marciano Lising, all from the 115th Co.,
while riding in a jeep follow­ing an armored car, were treacherously fired upon
by a group of about 100 dissi­dents armed with automatic rifles, Thomp­sons,
and Garands and lined up on both sides of Highway No. 5 near the cemetery of
San Miguel, Bulacan.  First Lt. Celes­tino
Tiansec and Second Lt. Marciano Lising were killed.

“(6)   In or about the month of June, 1946,
Alejandro Viernes, alias Stalin, com­mander of Joint Forces No. 108 with about
180 men, entered the town or Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, and raised their Huk
flag for more than twenty-four hours. 
The Municipal officials did not offer any resistance be­cause of the
superiority in number of the Huks.  After
demanding from the civilians foodstuffs such as rice, chickens, goats, and
carabaos, they left the town, admonishing the civilians always to support the
Huk or­ganization.  The MP forces under
Capt.  Ponciano Hanili, S-3, Capt.
Federico C. Olares, then Asst. S-3, of Nueva Ecija province, pro­ceeded to
Pantabangan with forces of the 112th MP Co. under Capt. Nicanor Garcia, to
verify the information, but were not able to contact the dissidents at
Pantabangan.  They proceeded to the
barrio of Marikit, between Pantabangan and Laur, where they engaged some
dissidents.  When our forces were on
their way home, they were pocketed by the dissidents at the zigzag road, but
owing to tree initiative of our forces, they were able to extricate themselves
from their precarious position and were able to fire their mortars and Cal.
.50 and .30 machineguns.  Investigations
made on the field of battle showed that the Huks suffered heavy casualties
which was verified later to have been seven cartloads of dead men. (Special
Report, PC, Nueva Ecija, dated February 23, 1948.)

“(7)   Mrs. Aurora Aragon Quezon and party were with
evident premeditation and treachery on the part of the Huks ambushed at about 10:30, 28
April 49 by an undeter­mined number or dissidents under Commanders
Viernes, Marzan, Lupo and Mulong at kilo­meter 62, barrio Salubsob, Bongabong,
Nueva Ecija.  PC escort exchanged fire
with the dissidents.  Patrol of the First
Heavy Weap­ons Company, 1st PC Battalion was dispatched to reinforce the PC
escort.  The following persons were
killed: Mrs. Quezon, Baby Quezon, Mayor P. Bernardo, Major P. San Agustin, A.
San Agustin, Lt. Lasam, Philip Buencamino III, and several soldiers. General
Jalandoni and Capt. Manalang sustained slight wounds.

“(8)   On August 25, 1950, Camp Macabulos, Tarlac,
Tarlac was attacked, raided and set fire to and among the casualties therein
were Major D. E. Orlino, Capt. T. D. Cruz, Lt. G. T. Manawis, Lt. C. N. Tan,
Lt. Eusebio Cabute, Sgt. Isabelo Vargas, Sgt. Bernardo Cadoy, Sgt. Bienvenido
Bugay, Sgt. Samuel Lopez, Cpl. Vicente Awitan, Cpl. Ruiz Ponce, Cpl. Eugenio
Ruelra, Pvt. Agustin Balatbat, Saturnino Guarin, E. Cabanban, Antonio Monte,
Felix Quirin, Gregoria Balcoco, Jose Mojica, Cornelio Melegan, Carlos Bojade,
Rodrigo Es­pejo and Rosario Sotto, a Red Cross nurse.”

Counsel for defendants Jose Lava and Federico Bautis­ta filed a
motion to quash the information against them upon the grounds that the
information did not conform to the prescribed form, that it charged the
defendants with more than one offense, and that the court had no jurisdic­tion
over the offense charged.  Also filed was
a petition for provisional liberty under bail of 14 of the defendants, upon the
grounds that (1) the evidence of guilt was not strong and (2) the suspension of
the writ of habeas corpus under Proclamation No. 210, dated October 22, 1950, by the President
of the Philippines
was unconstitutional.  Both motion and
petition were denied by the trial court in an order dated November 1, 1950.

Upon agreement of the prosecution and the defense, and with the
conformity of all the defendants, the five cases were tried jointly, with the
understanding that each defen­dant could present his/her separate and
independent defenses. Notwithstanding the fact that several witnesses had
already testified in the first two cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 14071 and 14082)
at the time the other three cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 14270, 14315 and 14344)
were filed, the defendants in the latter three cases expressed their conformity
to a joint trial with the first two cases and agreed that the evidence already
taken in the first two cases be reproduced in the latter three cases.

While the joint trial was being held, the prosecution, after a
reinvestigation of the cases, moved that the case with respect to defendant
Julia Mesina be dismissed upon the ground of insufficiency of evidence.  After the trial and before the cases were
submitted for decision, the prosecution also moved for the dismissal of the
case against defendant Rosenda Canlas Reyes upon the ground that the evidence
on record was not sufficient to support her conviction.  Both motions were granted by the trial court.

After the joint trial, the trial court rendered a joint decision
in the five cases, dated May 11, 1951.

In Criminal Case No. 14071, the court found defendants FEDERICO
MACLANG alias Eto alias O. Beria alias Olibas alias
Mariano Cruz alias Ambrosio Reyes alias Manuel Santos; RAMON
ESPIRITU alias Johnny alias Ka Johnny; ILUMINADA CALONJE alias
Salome Cruz alias Luming; JOSE LAVA alias Harry alias
Felix Cruz alias Gaston Silayan alias Gaston alias
Gregorio Santayana alias Greg alias Gavino; FEDERICO M. BAUTISTA alias
Freddie alias Fred; ANGEL BAKING alias Angel alias Boriz alias
Bayan; and ROSARIO VDA. DE SANTOS alias Charing, guilty as principals of
the complex crime of, rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies, and
pursuant to Article 248, subsections 1 and 3 of the Revised Penal Code, in
connection with its Article 48, sentenced defendants Federico Maclang, Ramon
Espiritu and Iluminada Calonje to the capital penalty of death; and defendants
Jose Lava, Federico M. Bautista, Angel Baking, and Rosario C. Vda. de Santos to
reclusion perpetua.  The
defendants were also ordered to pay the costs in this case.

In imposing the death penalty upon Federico Maclang, Ramon
Espiritu and Iluminada Calonje, the court took into consideration not only the
very nature of the crime commit­ted but also the aggravating circumstance that
the said three defendants secured the aid of persons under 15 years of age in
the commission of the crime.

In Criminal Case No. 14082, the court found defendants CESAREO
TORRES alias Cesareo Yacat alias Leo alias Leo­dones;
ARTURO BAKING Y CALMA alias Arturo C. Baking alias A. C. Baking alias
Arturo Calma Baking alias Eduardo Santos, and MARCOS MEDINA alias
Hiwara guilty as principals of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple
murder, ar­sons, and robberies and sentenced the said defendants to reclusion
perpetua.  The court also found
defendants LAMBERTO MAGBOO alias Berting alias Eddie and NICANOR
RAZON, SR., alias Elias Ruvi, as accomplice in the commission of the
said crime and were sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of ten (10) years
of prision mayor, as minimum to seventeen (17) years of reclusion
temporal as maximum.

The court did not find sufficient evidence to estab­lish the
guilt of the defendant ESTEBAN GONZALES Y LA TORRE, alias Esteban La
Torre Gonzales, either as principal or accomplice in the commission of the said
crime.  The court, however, found him
guilty as member of the Communist Party in the Philippines,
which is an illegal association, and pursuant to Article 147 of the Revised
Penal Code, the said defendant was sentenced to four (4) months of arresto
mayor.  All the defendants were
ordered to pay costs.

In Criminal Case No. 14270, the court found defendants SIMEON
GUTIERREZ Y RODRIGUEZ alias Simeon Rodriguez alias Sammy alias
S. G. R. alias Lakindanum; MARCIANO DE LEON Y ESPIRITU alias
Marciano E. de Leon alias Marcial alias Mar, guilty as principals
in the commission of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons,
and robberies; and JULITA RODRIGUEZ Y GUTIERREZ alias Judith alias
Juling alias Juliet alias Julie, as accomplice in the commission
of the said crime, and sentenced defendants Simeon Gutierrez y Rodriguez, and
Merciano de Leon y Espiritu to reclusion perpetua; and defendant
Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez to an indeterminate prison term of ten (10)
years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years of reclusion
temporal as maximum.  These
defendants were ordered to pay the costs.

The court acquitted defendant VICTORINA RODRIGUEZ Y GUTIERREZ alias
Vicky alias Toring.

In Criminal Case No. 14315, the court found defendants CENON
BUNCAY Y BAGTAS alias Ruping alias Commander Rufing alias
Bagtas and HONOFRE D. MANGILA alias Onofre Mangila alias Tommy alias
Miller guilty as principals of the com­plex crime of rebellion with multiple
murder, arsons and robberies, and pursuant to the provision of Article 48 of
the Revised Penal Code the said defendant Cenon Bungay y Bagtas and Honofre D.
Mangila were sentenced to death.  In
arriving at this decision the court took into consideration the gravity of
their participation in the said complex crime, the first being a Huk squadron
commander, who led and took part in several raids and ambuscades conducted by
the HMB and caused the killing of Major Leopoldo Alicbusan of the PC Detachment
at San Pablo City, Laguna, and the second (Mangila) being a member of the
powerful Central Committee of the Communist Party in the Philippines, which
elects the Politburo members.  The said
defendants were also ordered to pay the costs.

In Criminal Case No. 14344, the court found defendant MAGNO
PONTILLERA BUENO alias Magno Buena alias Mamerto Ban­yaga alias
Narding, guilty as principal of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple
murder, arsons, and robberies and sentenced the said defendant to death.  The court, likewise found defendants ROSALINA
V. QUIZON alias Regina Quiambao; PEDRO VICENCIO alias Pedring;
FELIPE ENGRESO alias Ipe; JOSEFINO ADELAN Y. ABUSEJO alias Fely;
ELPIDIO ACUÑO ADIME alias Rolly, alias Rolly Enriquez alias
Rol alias Pidiong, and NATY CRUZ alias Natie alias Naty alias
Spring, and CONRADO DOMINGO alias Adong guilty beyond reasonable doubt
as accomplices in the commission of the said crime and sentenced the said
Rosalina Quizon and Pedro Vicencio to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10)
years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years of reclusion
temporal as maximum; and Felipe Engreso, Josefina Adelan and Conrado
Domingo to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years of prision correccional
as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum.  The last three accused were declared entitled
to the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority, they being under 18 years
of age.

With respect to defendants Elpidio Acuño Adime and Naty Cruz,
they being under 16 years of age, further pro­ceedings were suspended, and
pursuant to the provision of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, the court
ordered that the said Elpidio Acuño Adime be committed to the Boys’ Training
School and Naty Cruz to the Girls’ Training School at Mandaluyong, Rizal under
the custody and supervision of the Commissioner of Social Welfare or his
authorized representatives until they reach the age of majority or until
further orders of the court.  The
Commissioner of Social Welfare was directed to submit to the court every four
months a written report on the good or bad conduct of the said minors, on the
moral and intellectual progress made by them during the period of their
confinement in said institutions.

The court acquitted defendants NICANOR CAPALAD alias Canor
and AURORA GARCIA alias Laring.

All the defendants except Nicanor Capalad and Aurora Garcia were
ordered to pay the costs.

In imposing the capital penalty on Magno Pontillera Buena the
Court took into account not only his being a mem­ber of the powerful Central
Committee of the Communist Par­ty jointly with Federico Maclang and Honofre
Mangila but also his being an instructor on Military Tactics in the “Stalin
University”, the military
training school for Huks in the mountains.

The rights to file a civil action to recover indem­nity for the
death of the victims of the murders specific­ally referred to in these cases
were reserved to the heirs of the said victims.

Thus, of the original 31 defendants in these five criminal cases,
five were acquitted, namely: Julia Mesina, Rosenda Canlas Reyes, Victorina
Rodriguez y Gutierrez, Nicanor Capalad and Aurora Garcia. Of the 26 who were
con­victed, all appealed to this Court except defendant Esteban Gonzales la
Torre.  Later, defendants Rosalina
Quizon, El­pidio Acuño Adime, Josefina Adelan Abusejo, Conrado Domingo and Naty
Cruz withdrew their appeal.  During the
pendency of the appeal, defendants Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez and Magno Pontillera
Bueno died.  The appeals now before this
Court, therefore, involves only 18 defendants, namely: Jose Lava, Federico
Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Rosario
vda. de Santos, Angel Baking, Lamber­to Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Marcos Medina,
Cesareo Torres, Arturo Baking, Simeon G. Rodriguez, Marciano de Leon, Honof­re
Mangila, Cenon Bungay, Pedro Vicencio, and Felipe En­greso.

Upon petition by the Deputy Chief, Military Intelli­gence Service
(MIS) of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
this Court, by order or March 7, 1952,
appointed the MIS the custodian or the exhibits and documents that were pre­sented
as evidence in these five criminal cases before the trial court. This step was
taken because those documents and exhibits were needed also as evidence in
other courts in the prosecution of other members of the HNB (Hukbong
Mapagpalaya ng Bayan).  Later, by order
of April 14, 1955, this
Court appointed the Staff Judge Advocate of the Philip­pine Constabulary the
custodian of the same documents and exhibits. 
Those documents and exhibits were kept at the headquarters of the
Philippine Constabulary at Camp Crame,
Quezon City.  On September
10, 1958 the headquarters of the PC was destroyed by fire, and all
those documents and ex­hibits were burned. 
Upon a petition for the reconstitution of the said documents and
exhibits, this Court appointed Deputy Clerk of Court Bienvenido Ejercito as
Commissioner to receive evidence for the reconstitution of those documents and
exhibits.  The Commissioner, after due
hearing, submitted his report, dated October 6, 1959, recommending that the
documents and exhibits that were burned be declared reconstituted by the
photostatic copies or the originals of those documents and exhibits.  The Commissioner stated in his report that
those photostatic copies were duly identi­fied during the hearings on the
reconstitution.  Over the objection of
counsels for the defendants-appellants, this Court approved the report of the
Commissioner.

Counsels for the appellants were allowed by the Court all the
time that they needed to prepare the briefs for the appellants.  The last brief for the appellants was filed
on January 22, 1963.  The Solicitor General filed the brief for the
appellee (People of the Philippines)
on June 29, 1963.  These appeals were set for hearing on oral
argument on August 28, 1963.  On that date counsel for some of the
defendants-appellants argued the case for their clients; and counsels for other
defendants-appellants were given a period of 20 days to submit a memorandum in
lieu of oral argument.  The Solicitor
General was likewise granted leave to submit a reply memorandum within 20 days
from the re­ceipt of the copies of the appellants’ memoranda. Upon the filing
of the memoranda these cases were considered submitted for decision.

These cases have been pending for decision in this Court since
October, 1963, and it would seem that this Court has not acted with dispatch in
the disposition of these cases.  It must
be known, however, that this Court has been swamped with cases appealed from
the lower courts and from administrative bodies and officials, as provi­ded by
law, and despite the arduous labors by the members of this Court the docket of
this Court has been, and still is, clogged. 
There are numerous criminal cases appealed to this Court ahead of these
five cases.  Certainly the appellants in
those earlier appealed criminal cases deserve the same concern from this Court
that the appellants in these five cases expect for themselves.  The record of these five cases, consisting of
the “rollos”, the trans­cript of the stenographic notes taken during
the trial and the documentary exhibits, is so voluminous that when piled
vertically it would stand almost three feet high.  The re­cord has to be meticulously examined
and studied by the members of this Court, working as a collegiate body.  In deciding cases, this Court inclines more
to careful study and deliberation rather than to dispatch.

Existence and activities of the CPP and HMB

We have thoroughly examined the testimonial and doc­umentary
evidence in the present cases, and We find it conclusively proved, as did the
lower court, that as of the year 1950 when elements of the police and armed
forces of the Government arrested the defendants in these five cases there was
already a nationwide organization of the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP), and that said party had a well-organized plan to overthrow the
Philippine Government by armed struggle and to establish in the Philip­pines a
communist form of government similar to that of Soviet Russia and Red
China.  The Communist Party of the Philippines
had as its military arm the organization known as the “Hukbong Mapagpalaya
ng Bayan” (HMB), otherwise or formerly known as the Hukbalahaps
(Huks).  It is establish­ed that the
rebellious activities of the HMB, and the commission of common crimes in
different parts of the country by the HMB, were directed by the Communist Party
of the Philippines
through its Politburo (PB) and/or Secretariat (SEC).  The Politburo and/or the Secretariat gave
orders to the field through its general headquarters (GHQ) and its regional
commands (RECOS), and reports to the Politburo and/or Secretariat were made
regarding the activities of the HMB, giving accounts of the sorties or ambushes
and attacks against elements of the police, the Philippine Constabulary and the
army, and of killings, lootings and des­tructions of property.  It is also established that the plan of the
Communist Party was not only to overthrow the Philippine Government but also to
kill officials of the Government and private individuals who refused to
cooperate with the rebels, and orders to this effect were transmitted to the
HMB.

Among the documentary evidence presented during the trial is the
Constitution of the Communist Party of the Philippines,
one of the documents seized in one of the raids when some of the appellants
were arrested.  In this document it is
shown that the CPP has a National Congress (NC) which is the highest authority
in the party.  The National Congress
formulates the policies of the party, and determines the functions of the party
and of the standing committees; it renders decisions on all problems regarding
organizations and tactics, and on appeals brought before it; and it elects the
members of the Central Committee (CC). 
The Central Com­mittee, which is the highest authority when the National
Congress is not in session, enforces the Constitution, im­plements the policies
formulated by the National Congress, promulgates rules and regulations,
supervises all political and organizational work of the party, takes charge of
financial matters and renders an accounting thereof to the Nation­al Congress,
and elects the General Secretary (SEC) and all the members of the Politburo.  The Politburo (PB) is the real executive body
of the party, and is responsible for the execution of the powers and duties of
the Central Com­mittee when the latter is not in session.  The General Sec­retary and the Politburo are
responsible to the Central Com­mittee for all their decisions and actions.  Then there are departments, bureaus,
committees and other organizational units. 
There is the National Education Department (NED), the Educational
Department (ED), the Organization Bureau (OB), the Organizational Department
(OD), the District Organiza­tion Committee (DOC), the Peasants’ Organization
(PO), the Trade Union Department (TUD), the Sanggunian Tanggulang Baryo (STB),
the Military Committee (MC), the General Head­quarters (GHQ), the Regional
Command (RECO), the Field Com­mand (FC), the Battalion (BN), the Company (CO),
the Platoon (PLN), and the Squad (SQD). 
There is also the National Finance Committee (NFC) in charge of the
financial matters of the Party, the RECO Finance Committee (RFC), the District
Finance Committee (DFC), the Field Command Supply Officer (FC-G-4), the
Battalion Supply Officer (Bn-G-4), the Com­pany Supply Officer (Co-G-4), the
Platoon Supply Officer (Pln-S-4), the National Courier Division (NCD), the Reco
Courier Division (RCB), the Central Post (CP), and Field Command Courier
(FC-Courier).

The Secretariat provisionally assumed the functions of the GHQ
which was abolished by the Politburo in its conference in January 1950.  The Secretariat alone has final authority to
impose the death penalty in court martial cases where SECCOM (National
Committee) cadres are involved.  Se­veral
SEC transmissions to the Politburo members assigned to regional commands
indicate that the Secretariat discussed plans of attack by the HMB, distributes
forces, and supplies intelligence information.

There is the National Courier (or Communication) Di­vision (NCD),
which is in charge of the communication system of the CPP, and the distribution
of supplies to the dif­ferent regional commands in the field.  There is a Special Warfare Division, in
charge of operating technological war­fare against the enemy such as the use of
home-made bombs, molotov cock-tails, land mine traps, etc.  There is the Technical Group (TG) which
attends to the manufacture of home­made firearms and other weapons.  This group includes chem­ists and
engineers.  Then there is the National
Intelligence Division, in charge of gathering military intelligence, as well as
political and economic intelligence.

For purposes of regional commands, the Philippines
was divided geographically into ten regions in order to facilitate the
political, military, and economic administration by the Communist Party of the Philippines.
Those regional commands are as follows:

RECO 1 –  Nueva
Ecija, Pangasinan and lower Mt. Province.

RECO 2 –  Pampanga,
Tarlac, Zambales and Bataan.

RECO 3 –  Bulacan
and Rizal, except the towns under City Command.

RECO 4 – Laguna, Batangas, Quezon and Cavite.

RECO 5 – Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur,
Albay and Sorsogon.

RECO 6 – Panay, Negros,
Cebu, Samar, Leyte
Bohol and Palawan.

RECO 7 – Davao,
Lanao, Cotabato, Zamboanga and Agusan.

RECO 8 – Cagayan
Valley provinces and Nueva Viscaya.

RECO 9 – Ilocos Norte, locos Sur, Abra,
and La Union.

CITY COMMAND –
Manila, Malabon, Caloocan, Navotas, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City,
Mandaluyong, San Juan, Marikina, Pasig, Guadalupe, Pasay, Baclaran, Parañaque,
Muntinglupa and Alabang.

The Communist Party of the Philippines
has a flag, colored red, with the symbols of the hammer and the sickle (Exhibit
A), and a newspaper organ called “TITIS”.  In the general plan to indoctrinate the
masses into communistic ideas and principles, communist schools – some of them
called “Stalin University”-
were set up in a number of places in the mountain fastnesses, where trained
instructors gave lectures and taught lessons in the principles of Karl Marx,
Frederich Engels, Joseph Stalin and Nicolai Lenin.

As has been stated, the CPP has an armed force, which is the
HMB.  The predecessor of the HMB was the
HUKBALAHAP, an organization created by the party during the Japanese occupation
to resist the Japanese forces.  Upon
liberation of the Philippines,
the members of the Hukbalahap continued their activities, the organization was
renamed HMB, and its members were indoctrinated in communistic principles.  The members of the HMB are known as
“Huks”.

The tie-up between the CPP and the HMB is established beyond
doubt by the evidence.  It is shown that
the heads of the CPP were in regular communication with the leaders of the HMB,
and the raids, ambushes, burnings, lootings and killings were planned and
authorized by the CPP.  Appellant
Federico Maclang, who is a member of the Politburo, in his testimony, admitted
that the HMB is the armed force of the CPP. 
Luis Taruc, who at the time was the head of the HMB, participated in the
meetings and deliberations of the CPP. 
Some instances may be cited: (1) When Luis Taruc, leader of the HMB, was
interviewed by Manuel Manahan representing the newspaper “Bagong
Buhay”, sometime in July 1950, the said interview was planned, approved
and authorized by the Secretariat of the Communist Party.  The purpose of the interview was to make
Taruc declare about the true status of the leadership in the HMB and the CPP,
and belie reports of division among the leaders; (2) When appellant Simeon Rod­riguez,
a member of the Politburo and a ranking member of the National Finance
Committee, was arrested at 268 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila on October 18,
1950, there were found in his possession 65 P100-bills and 60 P50-bills and
also P145 circulating notes and $312 in paper currency whose serial numbers
(except two dollars) tallied with the serial numbers of part of the money
(amounting to more than P80,000) that was taken by the Huks from the safe of
the office of the Provincial Treasurer when they raided Sta. Cruz, Laguna, on
August 26, 1950.  Provincial Treasurer
Balbino Kabigting of Laguna had a record of the serial numbers of the money
taken by the Huks, and he even issued a warning to the pub­lic about the loss
of the money – mentioning in the warning the serial numbers of the money
taken.  There are documents showing that
this “money taken from the provincial treasury of Laguna was the subject
or communications between Luis Taruc and appellant Federico Maclang and other
members of the Secretariat.

Written articles and official publications of the CPP and HMB,
which were presented as evidence, show the tie-up between the CPP and HMB.  Following are some excerpts from those
publications:

“As the situation now stands, it can be assumed that the
HMB under Communist leadership, already enjoys a quantitative edge over the
Nationalists Party …… (Exh. K-211, p. 7, “Struggle against
Await-ism.” (Underscoring supplied)

“The enemy was caught by surprise. The CPP and the HMB it
is leading scored a tremendous political victory…” (Exh. O-33,
“Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP. Underscoring supplied)

Documentary and testimonial evidence establish that the various
raids and ambuscades perpetrated by the HMB were planned, directed and
supported by the CPP.  Thus, in the
“Milestones in the History or the CPP”, written by appellant Jose
Lava, it is stated that at the enlarged Polit­buro conference of January, 1950,
it was decided to intensify HMB military operations for political and
organization­al purposes.  The widespread
raids and attacks on the occas­ion of the 8th HMB anniversary (March 28-29,
1950) was de­cided at the PB conference:

“The conference specifically decided to launch coordinated
military operations on the occasion of the eight anniversary of the HMB”
(Exh. 249, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. V.)

The CPP ordered the HMB to fight the
Philippine Constabula­ry and attack government installations.  Thus testified Benjamin Advincula, a former
high ranking HMB member, who said that when he was Secretary of RECO No. 4, he
received orders for transmission to the HMB to fight, the Philippine
Constabulary.  Attacks by the HNB were
also reported to the CPP.  The
accomplishments, for instance, of RECO 2 during the attacks at dawn on March 29, 1950 were reported in En­teng’s
(Luis Taruc) letter to the Secretariat on April 1, 1950.  This
letter reported the ambush and liquidation of Captain Dumlao and others; the
attack and burning of the CG (Civilian Guard) camp at Manibong Porac, and the
capture of arms and ammunitions thereat; the losses on the enemy side; the
burning of 12 houses and the liquidation of 2 spies at Mabalacat,
Pampanga.  A similar report was furnished
by a certain Pedring of RECO 2 in a letter to Eto (Federico Maclang) dated April 2, 1950.

It was, in fact, the Communist Party that celebrated the eighth
anniversary of the HMB, as appears in the Com­munist Party document
“Twenty Years of Struggle of the CPP” in which we read about the simultaneous
attacks of the HMB on March 29, 1950
the following:

“In quick succession, the Party celeb­rated the eight
anniversary of the HMB by the coordinated military operations from the far
north down to southern Luzon …” (Exh. O-33,
Folder of Exhibits, Vol. V)

The Secretariat issued the following instructions in connection
with the May 1, 1950 (Labor
Day) attack:

“. . .Repeat March 29 simultaneous attacks to time with May 1
celebration to convince the workers of the peasants’ unity in struggle with them.
Party and HMB messages to be sent.” 
(Exh. O-313, Folder of, Exhibits, Vol. V).

Replying to said order (Exh. O-313), the
Politburo representative of Regional Command No. 3 wrote Gaston (Jose Lava of
the Secretariat) and said:

“Ukol sa Plan for May 1st OK. 
We will try our best to accomplish our part without
hesitation.”  (Exh. M-179, Folder of
Exhibits, Vol. III).

The May 1, 1950
attack was followed by simultaneous attacks by the HMB on August 26, 1950, in commemoration f the first
“Cry of Balintawak.”  These
attacks were again decided, planned and directed by the Communist Party of the Philippines
as shown by transmissions from the Secretariat to the Politburo members in the
field. (Exh. O-93, par. 2; O-102, par. 6). 
The attacks on August 26, 1950
were also ordered by the Secretariat, because the evidence shows that the
Secretariat required submission of complete report there­of, and reports were
in fact submitted by Taruc (Enteng) on September
9, 1950 (Exhs. O-638, par. 8; O-278).

The Communist Party also planned the attack for Novem­ber 7, 1950, the 20th
anniversary of the CPP, which required bigger operations than the attack of
August 26, because towns were to be captured, barracks and jails were to be
raided and political enemies were to be liquidated.  The SEC assigned and allocated the forces to
different phases and places of operations. 
In hand-written notes identified by expert witness to have been written
by appellant Jose Lava, the following appears in connection with the plans for
November 7:

“. . .Coordinated — Core: Capture of towns near Manila, but near
Mt. bases —  Coordination of RECO 2, 3
& 4, Rizal – Cavite.  Pol liquidation
in City.  Bringing fight near strategic
political, military and economic centers Supporting RECO 1 in ILOCOS & CAGAYAN.  RECO 5 in BICOL & RECO 6 in
VISAYAS.” (Exh. O-12.)

As We have stated, the primordial objective of the Communist
Party of the Philippines
and of its armed force, the HMB, was to overthrow the Philippine Government by
armed struggle.  To attain this
objective, the CPP also envisioned the following expansion: of the cadres from
3,600 in July, 1950 to 56,000 in September 1951; of the party members from
10,900 in July, 1950 to 172,800 in September, 1951; of HMB members from 10,800
in July, 1950 to 172,800 in September, 1951; and of the organized masses from
30,000 in July, 1950 to 2,430,000 in September, 1951.

The Communist Party declared the existence of a re­volutionary
situation in November, 1949 and went under­ground.  This appears in the following excerpts from
documents that were presented as evidence during the trial.

“Quickly sizing up the existence of a revolutionary situation,
arising from the merger . . . of the crises of produc­tion due to the
imperialist-feudal domi­nation of our economy, and the parliamen­tary crises
due to fraud and terrorism in the 1949 elections, the CPP openly called on the
people to overthrow the Liberal Party puppets or the American
imperialists.” (Exhs. O-32, “Twenty Years of Struggle of the
CPP”, Exh. O-12 (hh)

“In the Philippines,
the CPP has already declared the existence of a revolutionary situation; and it
is concen­trating all its energies towards the hastening of the maturity of the
revolutionary situation into a crisis leading to the over­throw or the
imperialist puppets and the achievement of the NEW DEMOCRACY.” (Exh.
O-949, “Strategy and Tactics”, Exh. O-126­141)

“The CPP has declared the existence of a revolutionary
situation; since Novem­ber, 1949, as a result or the merger or the crisis in
production or our imperial­ist feudal dominated economy and the crisis of the
burgeois parliamentarism….. Since then, the CPP went completely underground,
and openly called on the people for the armed overthrow of the power of
American imperialism and its allies in the Philippines
exercised through its puppets…” (Exh. O-65)

“The Communist Party or the Philippines
is leading the armed struggle for national liberation and the establishment of
a New Democracy in order to crush the power of the exploiters, achieve power
for the exploited classes, and who are disposed to accept the new
society…” (Exh. O­-119 “Accounting for the. Peoples’ Fund Received
and Spent to Finance the Revo­lution; see also Exh. K-12 N-570-­573, M-1574,
K-244, O-749-56, Documents approved by SEC in its meeting on Feb­ruary 15, 1950. Exh. O-312, par.
3. See Vol. III, Folder of Exhibits)

“..The Communist Party marks the 54th anniversary of the CRY
OF BALINTAWAK calling on the people to join the HMB in annihilating the enemy
today, no different from the enemy denounced by Bonifacio.” (Exhs. M-1524,
Vol. III, Folder of Exhi­bits).

We find that the criminal acts, consisting of attacks against
Philippine Constabulary, murders, robberies, kid­napping, arson, etc. alleged
in the information are duly proved by evidence presented during the trial.  It is note­worthy that the appellants did not
attempt to disprove the evidence regarding the commission of these crimes.  Besides those alleged in the information,
there were other acts of attacks against the Philippine Constabulary, murders,
robberies etc. that were committed by the Huks that are proved by the evidence
– also not disproved by the appel­lants – as follows:

(1)  
On March 29, 1950, a band of armed Huks carrying a
communist flag raided San Pablo,
Laguna.  An encounter with the 27th PC
Company ensued, and several members of the PC were injured.  The Huks looted several Chinese stores.

(2)  
At about 3 o’clock in the morning of August 26, 1950, approximately 400
Huk dissidents armed with machine guns and rifles attacked Santa
Cruz, Laguna. 
The cashier of the office of the Provincial Treasurer was forced at gun
point, to open the vault from which the Huks took more than P80,600.  The Huks also took typewriters and office
supplies from the office of the Provincial Treasurer.  The Huks, after forcing the warden to give
the keys, opened the provincial jail and released the prisoners.  The provincial jail was later burned.  The Huks looted houses and took rice,
cigarettes and clothes, and burned five build­ings.

(3)  
On March 29, 1950, several Huks raided San
Mateo, Rizal, opened the safe in the municipal
building and took money.  They also got
food and medicines from the towns­people.

(4)  
On August 28, 1950, Huks attacked the municipal
building of Arayat, Pampanga, and forced the municipal mayor at the point of a
gun to give P3,629.31 in cash and some documentary stamps.  Killed during the incident was one Atty.
Samia.

(5)  
On March 28, 1950, about 80 to 100 Huks attacked San
Rafael, Montalban, killing 4 and wounding all
soldiers.  After the attack, the Huks
left communist propaganda leaf­lets.

(6)  
On August 30, 1949, upon receiving a report that
there was a concentration of Huks at Kamog, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, Lt.
Restituto A. Bisda organized a patrol of 20 enlisted men.  On the way the patrol was fired upon by the
Huks.  After the encounter, one Huk
member was found dead and from his body were taken several documents.

(7)  
On October 15 and 17, 1950, P.C.
Lt. Jose Velas­quez led three platoons of soldiers to the southwestern slope of
Mount Malipuño at Lipa City upon receipt of a report that about 200 Huks were
gathered in that place.  While climbing
the mountain they were suddenly attacked and fired upon by the dissidents
killing one soldier and wound­ing others. 
When they retaliated, the Huks retreated leav­ing behind a wounded
Huk.  The Huks abandoned their hide­outs
in the place.  Upon inspection, Lt.
Velasquez found a hut with several blackboards, papers and other school sup­plies
inside and a red hammer-and-sickle flag displayed on the wall with letters
“STALIN U” (Stalin University),
which indicated that the place is one of the military schools for the
Huks.  (The flag was produced in court
and marked Exhi­bit “A” for the prosecution.  This flag had been identified by a witness
for the prosecution, a former Huk Colonel named Benjamin Advincula, to be the
official flag of the HMB in their military training school in the mountains
wherein he had also undergone Huk military training.)

(8)  
At about midnight on March 29, 1950, Huk dissidents entered the town of Tanauan,
Batangas.  According to George Collantes,
the municipal mayor, there was shooting in the town, and later the industrial
center and market were burn­ed after they were raided.  Mayor Collantes saw a red flag hoisted by the
dissidents.  Two of the Huks dissidents
were killed.

Issues raised by appellants

The appellants, in their defense in the present ap­peals, have
raised issues that are common to them all, and also issues particular to each
one of them.  The issues particular to individual
appellants will be discussed at the latter part of this opinion when we deal
with their respective appeals.

1. The appellants are charged with having committed the crime of
rebellion with murders and arsons.  The
trial court declared some of them guilty as principals, and some as
accomplices, in the commission of the crime of rebellion complexed with
multiple murders, arsons and robberies.

The law pertinent to the determination or the criminal
responsibility of the appellants are Articles 134, 135, and 136 of Revised
Penal Code, 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 or 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.”

“Art. 135. Penalty for rebellion or insurrection. – Any
person who promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion or insurrection, or who,
while holding any public office or employment takes part therein, engaging in
war against the forces or the Government, destroying property or committing
serious violence, exacting contribu­tions or diverting public funds from the
lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated, shall suffer the penalty
of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 20,000 pesos.

“Any person merely participating or execut­ing the commands of
others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor
in its minimum period.

“When the rebellion or insurrection 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 the leader of such
rebellion.”

“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 5,000 pesos, and by prision
correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000
pesos.”

It is the common contention of the appellants that the trial
court erred in declaring that the crime com­mitted by the appellants was that
of “rebellion complexed with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies.”

We uphold the contention of the appellants.  The question, of whether or not a person may
be prosecuted and held guilty of the crime of rebellion complexed with mur­der,
arson, robbery and/or other common crimes, is now settled.  In the case of People vs. Hernandez, etc.
al.,^[1]
this Court held that the crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with other
common crimes.  The accused in the Her­nandez
case were charged, as are appellants in the instant cases, “with the crime
of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons, and robberies.”  This Court ruled that:

“One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the
words of said Article 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, and the hunger, illness and
unhappiness that war leaves in its wake – except that very often, it is worse
than war in the international sense, for it involves in­ternal struggle, a
fight between brothers, with a bitterness and a passion or ruth­lessness seldom
found in a contest between strangers. 
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 offense; but only one crime
– that of re­bellion plain and simple. 
Thus, for ins­tance, it has been held that ‘the crime of treason may be
committed ‘by executing either a single or similar intentional overt
acts, different or similar but dis­tinct, and for that reason, it may be
considered one single continuous offense. 
(Guinto vs. Veluz, 77 Phil., 801, 44 Off. Gaz., 909.)” (People vs.
Pacheco, 93 Phil., 521.)

“Inasmuch as the acts specified in said Article 135
constitute, we repeat, one single crime, it follows necessarily that
said acts offer no occasion for the application of Article 48, which requires
therefor the com­mission of, at least, two crimes.  Hence, this court his never in the
past, convicted any person of the ‘complex crime of rebellion with
murder’.  What is more, it appears that
in every one of the cases of rebellion published in the
Philippine Reports, the defendants were convicted of simple rebellion, although
they had killed several persons, sometimes
peace officers (U.S.vs. Lagnason, 3 Phil., 472; U.S.
vs. Baldello, 3 Phil., 509, U.S.
vs. Ayala, 6 Phil., 151; League vs. People, 73 Phil., 155)”

x          x          x          x

“There is one other reason – and a fun­damental one at that –
why Article 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar.  If murder were not complexed with rebellion,
and the two crimes punished separately (assuming that this could be done), the
following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the
crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor,
in the corres­ponding period, depending upon the mo­difying circumstances
present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor; and (2)
for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to death, depending upon the modifying circumstances present.  In other words, in the absence of aggravating
circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon
him.  However, under Article 48, said
penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in the absence of a
single aggravating circumstances. 
Thus, said provision, if cons­trued in conformity with the theory of the
prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant.”

“Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was enacted for the
purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty more
severe than that which would be proper if the several acts performed by him
were punished separately.  In the word or
Rodriguez Navarro:

‘La unificacion de penas en los casos de concurso de delitos a que
hace referencia este articulo (75 del Codigo de 1932), esta basado francamente
en el principio pro reo.’ (II Doctrina Penal del Tribunal Supremo
de España, p. 2168.)’

x          x          x          x

“It is evident to us that the policy of our statutes on
rebellion is to consider all acts committed in furtherance thereof – as
specified in Articles 134 and 135 of the Re­vised Penal Code – as constituting
only one crime, punishable with one single penalty
– namely, that prescribed in said Article 135.” x x x

x          x          x          x

“In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations the
amended information against defendant-appellant Amado V. Hernan­dez, the
murders, arsons and robberies des­cribed therein are mere ingredients of
the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by said defendants, as means
‘necessary’ (4) for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion; that the
crime charged in the aforementioned amended information is, therefore,
simple re­bellion; not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder,
arsons and robberies; that the maximum penalty imposable under such charge
cannot exceed twelve (12) years of prision mayor and a fine of
P20,000; and that, in conformity with the policy of this court in dealing with
accused persons amenable to a similar punishment, said defendant may be allowed
bail.”

The foregoing ruling was adhered to in the decisions of this
Court in the cases of People vs. Geronimo, G.R. No. L-8936, October 23, 1956; People vs.
Togonon, No. L-8926, June 29, 1957;
People vs. Romagosa, G.R. No. L-8476, February
28, 1958; and People vs. Santos,
G.R. No.L-11813, September 17, 1958.

In People vs. Geronimo, supra, this Court further
elaborated on the Hernandez ruling, as follows:

“As in treason, where both intent and overt act are necessary,
the crime of re­bellion is integrated by the coexistence of both the armed
uprising for the purposes ex­pressed in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code,
and the overt acts of violence described in the first paragraph of Article
135.  That both purpose and overt acts
are es­sential components of one crime, and that without either of them the
crime of rebel­lion legally does not exist is shown by the absence of any
penalty attached to Article 134.  It
follows, therefore, that any or all of the acts described in Article 135, when
committed as a means to or in further­ance of the subversive ends described in
Article 134, becomes absorbed in the crime of rebellion, and cannot be re­garded
or penalized as distinct crimes in themselves. In law they are part and parcel
of the rebellion itself, and can­not be considered as giving rise to a separate
crime, that, under Article 48 of the Code, would constitute a complex one with
that of rebellion.”

And in People vs. Aquino, et al., L-13789, June 30, 1960, 57 O.G. 9180, this Court said:

“On the other hand, from the very tes­timony of Filomeno
Casal, another witness for the prosecution, it can be gathered that the one who
killed or ordered the killing of Mendoza was Commander Silva who, according to
Casal, ordered Mendoza to lie down and when the latter refused he shot
him.  If we are to believe the testimony
of this wit­ness the only one responsible for Mendoza’s
death is Commander Silva for there is nothing to show that his companions who
were under his command knew that his design was to li­quidate him.  At any rate, since it appears that the
killing was committed not because of any personal motive on the part or the ac­cused
but merely in pursuance of the huk move­ment to overthrow the duly constituted
authori­ties, the proper charge against them would be rebellion and not
murder….” x x x x

The reason for this was already given by this Court in People vs.
Hernandez, et al., supra, to wit:

“In short, 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 acquires the political character of the
latter.”^[2]

The Solicitor General, in behalf of the appellee, The People of
the Philippines, asks this Court to reexam­ine the ruling in the Hernandez case
“based not only on grounds of public policy but also to interpret the law
in order to have justice and adequacy into the Philippine law on rebellion on
the basis of prevailing jurisprudential schools of thought such as the
sociological theory on the natural law doctrine and ….. the policy science
theory”.^[3]  This Court has given this plea of the
Solicitor General a very serious consideration, but after a mature deliberation
the members of this Court have decided to maintain that ruling in the Hernandez
case and to adhere to what this Court said in that case, as follows:

“The Court is conscious of the keen interest displayed, and
the considerable efforts exerted, by the Executive Department in the apprehension
and prosecution of those believed to be guilty of crimes against public order,
of the lives lost, and the time and money spent in connection therewith, as
well as of the possible implications or repercussions in the securi­ty of the
State.  The careful consideration given
to said policy of a coordinate and co-equal branch of the Government is ref­lected
in the time consumed, the extensive and intensive research work undertaken, and
the many meetings held by the members of the court for the purpose of
elucidating on the question under discussion and of settling the same.

“The role of the judicial department under the Constitution
is, however, clear – to settle justiciable controversies by the application of
the law. And the latter must be enforced as it is — with all its flaws and
defects, not affecting its validity — not as the judges would have it. In
other words, the courts must apply the policy of the State as set forth in
its laws, regardless of the wisdom thereof.

                      x                      x                      x                      x

“Thus the settled policy of our laws on rebellion, since the
beginning of the century, has been one of decided leniency, in compa­rison with
the laws in force during the Spanish regime. 
Such policy has not suffered the slightest alteration.  Although the Government has, for the past
five or six years, adopted a more vigorous course of action in the appre­hension
of violators of said law and in their prosecution, the established
policy of the State, as regards the punishment of the culprits has
remained unchanged since 1932.  It is not
for us to consider the merits and demerits of such policy.  This falls within the province of the
policy-making branch of the Government — the Congress of the Philippines…”

x          x          x          x

“Such evils as may result from the failure of the policy of
the law punishing the offense to dovetail with the policy of the law
enforcing agencies in the apprehension and prosecution of the
offenders are matters which may be brought to the attention of the departments
concerned.  The judicial branch cannot amend
the former in order to suit the latter. 
The Court cannot indulge in judicial legislation without violating the
principles of separation of powers, and, hence, undermining the foundation of
our republican system.  In short, we
cannot accept the theory of the prosecution without causing much bigger harm
than that which would allegedly result from the adoption of the op­posite
view.” 

2. The appellants also contend that the informations against them
charge more than one offense, in violation of Section 12, Rule 106 of the old
Rules of Court (now Section 12, Rule 117 of the new Rules of Court).  This contention has no merit.  A reading of the informations re­veals the
theory of the prosecution that the accused had committed the complex crime of
rebellion with murders, robbery and arsons, enumerating therein eight counts
regarding specific acts of murder, robbery and arson.  These acts were committed, to quote the
information, “to create and spread terrorism in order to facilitate the
accomplish­ment of the aforesaid purpose”, that is, to overthrow the
Government.  The appellants are not
charged with the com­mission of each and every crime specified in the counts as
crimes separate and distinct from that of rebellion.  The specific acts are alleged merely to
complete the narration or facts, thereby specifying the way the crime of
rebellion was allegedly committed, and to apprise the defendants of the
particular facts intended to be proved as the basis for a finding of conspiracy
and/or direct participation in the commission of the crime of rebellion.^[4]   An informa­tion is not duplicitous if it
charges several related acts, all of which constitute a single offense,
although the acts may in themselves be distinct offenses.^[5]   Moreover, this Court has held that acts of
murder, arson, robbery, physical injuries, etc. are absorbed by, and form part
and parcel of, the crime of rebellion it committed as a means to or, in
furtherance of the rebellion charged.^[6]

3.     
Another contention of appellants
is that the trial court, the Court of First Instance of Manila, did not have
jurisdiction to try the cases against them because the acts enumerated in the
eight counts in the information were com­mitted outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.  This
contention is also without merit. 
Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that the criminal
action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the munici­pality or
province where the offense was committed or any one of the essential
ingredients thereof took place.  The
informations allege that Manila
is the seat of the Govern­ment of the Republic of the Philippines
which the appel­lants sought to overthrow and that Manila
was chosen by the accused as the nerve center of all their rebellious acti­vities
in the different parts of the country. 
While it is true that the murders, robberies and arsons alleged in the
informations were committed outside the City of Manila, in the informations it
is alleged that it was in Manila where the accused had decided and agreed to
commit the crime of rebellion and it was in Manila where they pro­moted,
maintained, caused, directed and/or commanded the HMB to rise publicly and take
arms against the Government, as in fact the HMB had risen publicly, making
armed raids, sorties, ambushes, and committing wanton acts of murder, arson,
looting, etc.  An essential ingredient of
the crime or which appellants were charged, therefore, took place in Manila.

4.     
Some of the appellants contend
that their consti­tutional rights were violated because the documentary
evidence presented against them were illegally seized or had come from doubtful
sources.  This claim has no merit.  We have carefully examined the record, and We
find that search warrants were properly secured by the peace officers before raids
were effected and that the documents, articles and effects seized from each
place raided were listed, inventoried and marked.  It even appears that statements were signed
by some of the appellants certifying that the search warrants were executed in an
orderly and peaceful manner by the raiding parties.

5.     
The appellants assail the
reconstitution of the ex­hibits that were destroyed, and claim that the
reconstitu­ted exhibits should not be considered in this appeal.  We have stated at the earlier part of this
opinion that the exhibits (documentary and other articles) were placed in the
custody of the Philippine Constabulary because they had to be presented as
evidence in the trial of rebellion cases pending in other courts.  Most of the originals of the documentary
evidence were burned during the fire that gut­ted the headquarters of the
Philippine Constabulary on September
10, 1958.  The Solicitor
General filed a peti­tion for the reconstitution of the burned exhibits.  The petition was given due course by this
Court, and the Deputy Clerk of this Court was commissioned to receive the
evidence on the reconstitution of the burned documents.  The list of reconstituted exhibits is Exhibit
C-Reconstitution.  In his report, dated October 6, 1959, the Commissioner
recom­mended the admission of all the reconstituted exhibits.

We find that the reconstitution was made in accordance with the
provisions of Act 3110, which provides for the procedure in the reconstitution
of court records.  Section 59 of said act
provides that destroyed documentary evidence shall be reconstituted by means or
secondary evidence which maybe presented to any Justice of the Supreme Court or
any other officer commissioned by the Court. Section 14 of the act provides
that the destroyed or lost documentary evidence shall be replaced by secondary
evidence.  A photostatic copy of an
original document is admissible as a secondary evidence or the contents or the
original.  Photostatic copies are
faithful reproductions of the contents of the originals and they constitute
evidence of a satisfactory nature.^[7]  The record shows that the photostatic copies
of the destroy­ed exhibits, which were presented before the Commissioner during
the reconstitution proceedings, were taken before the originals were destroyed
by fire.  The photostatic copies had been
compared with the originals, properly checked and recorded, by the officer who
was the custodian of the ex­hibits.

The certified typewritten copies made from the origin­al
documents that were hand-written in ink are also se­condary evidence of the
contents of the latter.  Sgt. Aqui­lino
Tingco, assigned as assistant to the document officer in charge or the court
exhibits in the rebellion cases, testified that he was the one who furnished
the typists the original documents, and after those originals were copied on
the typewriter he compared the typewritten copies with the originals,
proof-read them, stamped them and had them certified as true copies.  This witness further testified that before
the certified copies were presented in court as evidence said copies were
compared with their origin­als.^[8]

During the reconstitution proceedings, counsel for appellants
objected to the admission of some of the recons­tituted documents upon the
ground that they were not suf­ficiently identified.  The Commissioner, however, admitted all the
reconstituted documents, and We find that the Commissioner rightly did so.  We find that Exhibits R-X-6 to R-P-73-79, the
admission of which was objected to, were properly identified.  Captain Enrique L. Reyes of the PC, who was
entrusted with the custody or the documents, had the list of all the exhibits
that were burned, which were inventoried and verified; as well as a list or
those ex­hibits that were presented in these cases, or which photostatic copies
had been taken; and when asked where the photostatic copies were, Capt. Reyes
said that he had the photostatic copies, and pointed to a bundle of fold­ers
containing them.  These exhibits were
checked and counter-checked with the record of the present cases in the Supreme
Court.^[9]   Sgt. Aquilino Tingco, who brought the
exhibits to the different courts where they were presented as evidence, and who
personally supervised the taking of the microfilm and the photostatic copies
that were presented in the courts in lieu of the originals, when asked to show
to the Commissioner the photostats made of the documents which were used in the
Politburo cases, extracted from a folder a bundle of papers and presented the
list of exhibits (Exh. C-Reconstitution) along with photostatic copies of those
listed exhibits, and he testi­fied on them. 
The witness was asked to consult the list of exhibits (Exhibit
C-Reconstitution) and he pointed to the Commissioner the exhibits to be marked
according to the list, which the Commissioner himself marked.  The wit­ness testified that the contents of
the documents thus marked were the same as those of the originals.  The Commissioner considered the documents
properly identified and he admitted the documents over the objection of coun­sel
for the appellants, and he recommended to this Court the admission of all of
them.  This Court approved the report of
the Commissioner.

We have carefully examined and analyzed these re­constituted
exhibits and We believe that they constitute a competent evidence to be
considered in arriving at a decision in these cases.

6.     
The appellants also claim that
they were not af­forded the time and freedom to prepare for their defense.  This claim of appellants is not borne by the
record.  The record shows, that the trial
of these cases took months; all the defendants were represented by counsel,
either de oficio or de parte, who did their best to
defend the appellants during the trial. In fact the defense lawyers were
commended by the trial court for their efforts in defense of the
appellants.  None of the appellants was
deprived of his day in court.  Everyone
was given an op­portunity to testify and/or adduce evidence in his behalf.  All the appellants, except Jose Lava and
Nicanor Razon, Sr., testified in court in their own defense.  The record does not show that appellant Razon
had testified or had pre­sented any evidence in his behalf.  Appellant Jose Lava voluntarily refrained
from taking the witness stand, but, instead, he presented witnesses who vouched
for his good moral character and exemplary conduct as a citizen.  We find no merit in the claim that the
appellants were not afforded ample time and opportunity to prepare for their
defense.

Having thus resolved thee common issues raised by the appellants,
We now proceed to determine the criminal res­ponsibility, if any, of the
individual appellants.

The lower court found some of the appellants guilty as
principals, and some as accomplices, in the commission of the complex crime of
rebellion with multiple murder, ar­son and robberies.  We have already declared in this opin­ion
that the crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, robbery and other
common crimes.  Our task, there­fore, is
to determine the degree or responsibility of each of the appellants in the
commission of the crime or simple rebellion as defined and penalized under the
provisions of Articles 134, 135 and 136 or the Revised Penal Code.

1. The appeal of Jose Lava

Upon a careful study of the evidence, We find:

That appellant Jose Lava was known under these alias­es: Harry,
Felix Cruz, Gaston, Gaston Silayan, Greg, Gre­gorio Santayana and Gavino. Jose
Lava became a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines
during the Japanese occupation.  In a
self-appraisal which he wrote, and pub­lished in mimeograph form with the
approval of the Secre­tariat, he stated that although he was a new Party member
he had been entrusted with responsible positions in the Party and that due to
his high sense of responsibility and initiative he could rank with the best in
the party.  Lava was not only a confirmed
communist; he was a ranking leader of the CPP, being a member of the Central
Committee (CC) of the CPP and he participated in the Politburo meetings.  In the Politburo conference in Manila
in January 1947 he proposed armed struggle to overthrow the Government.  His participation therein was described in
Exhibit O-228-229, as follows:

“x x x There was an attempt in the conference to give it a
character of a CC conference notwithstanding the fact that there were only
eleven CC members, out of thirty-five, present in the con­ference.  There was also an attempt to isolate some CC
members who were easily available, as evidenced by the non-invi­tation of Coms
VY, Harry and Pacing known for their views in support of the
Nacionalista-Democratic Alliance coalition, and for an early resumption of the
armed struggle.  It was only later in the
con­ference, when their absence was noted by certain comrades, that Com Harry
was in­vited to the conference…”

“Com Harry proposed that the con­ference declare that armed
struggle be the main form of struggle….”

Other documents show that Jose Lava had been attend­ing meetings
of the Secretariat (SEC) since October, 1949. 
He signed, under the alias “Gaston Silayan”, the Secretar­iat’s
transmission to the Politburo members in the field, under date of October 22, 1949.  He issued under different aliases, for and in
behalf of the Secretariat, Secretariat transmissions up to October 14, 1950.  He signed as “Gaston” the
Secretariat’s transmission dated December
24, 1949; he signed as “Greg” those of July 22, 1950, of September 23, 1950, of September 30, 1950, of October 7, 1950, and of October 14, 1950; and signed as
“Gavino” the transmis­sion dated September 25, 1950.

Jose Lava’s membership in the Secretariat of the CPP is shown in
various documents (Exh. C-1313 and Exhs. O-269-270).  In another exhibit, N-1015-1017, Kas. Gaston
was addressed to as the General Secretary.

As member of the SEC, and as General Secretary, Jose Lava
attended SEC meetings and transmitted the decisions of the SEC to the comrades
of the Politburo in the region­al commands. 
His direct participation in the meetings of the SEC was mentioned in
several SEC transmissions.  In one such
transmissions he (Gaston) advocated the overthrow of the corrupt Liberal Party
administration because of the wholesale fraud and terrorism during the
elections of 1949.  In the meeting of May 5, 1950, he (Gaston) disagreed
with Eto (Federico Maclang) and Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) on the way of giving
money to deserving families, saying that:

“Even if we have a million pesos now, we still would need same
to buy arms and ammo, decisively improve our propaganda to spread our influence
over all the country, improve the diet of our fighting soldiers to increase
their fighting efficiency, all with a view to hastening the people’s vic­tory
and end their suffering earlier.” (Exh. O-91, par. 2)

In the SEC meeting of September
29, 1950 “Greg” (Jose Lava) dissented from the majority
decision rejecting the proposal that Boris (Angel Baking) be allowed to attend
the Military Committee (MC) meeting. (Exh. O-339, par. 15).

Apart from his routinary duties as General Secretary, other
duties were assigned to Jose Lava under his aliases.  Thus, as “Gaston”, he was
designated in the SEC’s meeting of December
20, 1949 to take care of the editorial of the “TITIS”,
the official organ of the Communist Party; he was given supervision over women
matters, and over political and educational matters, in the meetings of February 15, 1950 and April 14, 1950.  “Gaston” was also in charge of
Direct Party Propaganda, Curriculum and Analysis.  As “Greg”, he was appointed by the
SEC as one of the 15 members of the Military Committee (MC).  He was to supervise, as decided in the SEC
meeting of April 14, 1950,
the newly organized Technological Group. 
He was instructed by the SEC, in its meeting of September 15, 1950, to prepare a draft of the
resolution for discussion before the Milita­ry Committee.  In the meeting of the SEC on September 22, 1950, he was given
power to review all the minutes and decisions of the National Education
Commission (NEC) and only matters which he did not approve were to be taken up
by the Secretariat.

Jose Lava also attended and presided meetings of the Communists
and the HMB in his house in Tejeron, Makati,^[10]

Jose Lava was the author of many articles and/or writings, among
them: “Self-Appraisal by Gregorio Santa­yana,” a hand-written outline;
“Struggle against Awaitism, by Gregorio Santayana”, also a
handwritten outline, with a typewritten copy; “Outline of Strategy and
Tactics”; “Strategy and Tactics”; “Twenty Years of Struggle
of the CPP”; “Outline on Milestones in the History of the CPP”;
“Milestones in the History of the CPP”, which is a part of the
curriculum in the secondary course of the schools Conducted by the CPP.  The “Outline on Strategy and
Tactics” and “Strategy and Tactics” were also in the se­condary
curriculum texts of the CPP.  He is also
the author of “Finance Opportunism, Its Basic Causes and Remedies”, a
portion of which reads:

“… There is no question that we can drastically eradicate finance
opportunism within the Party and the National liberation movement it is leading,
and thereby hasten the maturity of the revo­lutionary crisis and prepare the
Party to create a clean and honest body or adminis­trators and state
functionaries and thereby maintain the power of the NEW DEMOCRACY that we are
set to establish.”

Another work of Jose Lava is
“Accounting of the People’s Funds Received and Spent to Finance the
Revolutions”, a portion of which reads as follows:

“The Communist Party of the Philippines
is leading the armed struggle for national liberation and the establishment of a
New Democracy in order to crush the power of the exploiters, achieve power for
the exploited classes and exercise such power for their benefit, and for those
who are disposed to accept the new society….”

Jose Lava also wrote other documents, among them his handwritten
notes containing the territorial extent of Recos 1 to 7, and a plan of attack
on the November 7, 1950 celebration; a list containing several persons
(aliases) assigned to Recos 1 to 7 and to the Military; Pol-Ed, organizational
and GHQ organs; a letter to Eto (Federico Maclang) on the reverse of a list
containing names of Malacañan special agents. 
He also wrote letters to Party members concerning the activities of the
Party and/or HMB — unmistakably indicating conspiracy or con­nection between
him and other top HMB and CPP leaders in the field.  Thus, “Gaston” (Lava) wrote a
letter to Leo (Cesareo Torres) informing the latter that the stencils for
“Ang Komunista” were already sent by NED-Out and that if Leo needed
funds, he could ask from the NFC.  In a
letter of September 4, 1950
to Eto (Federico Maclang), “Gaston” (Lava) transmitted to Maclang
three letters, on the reverse side of one which was a note of O. Beria
(Maclang) asking who the writers were. In his letter of September 26, 1950 “Gaston” advised Eto
(Maclang) to circularize all Recos about the conference of the RECO­Ed and G-3
before October 15.  In his letter of
Septem­ber 12, Gaston asked the addressee Johnny (Ramon Espiri­tu) about the
latter’s self-appraisal, the Hospital Group, and the selection of two
additional members to help Luming (Iluminada Calonje or Salome Cruz).

The foregoing findings of this Court are based main­ly on
documents presented as evidence during the trial.  Those documents were taken: some from the
third floor of the Mayflower Apartments, at Estrada and Pennsylvania Streets in
Manila, which was then rented by appellant Lava when it was raided by peace
officers on June 23, 1950; and the other documents from the different places
that were raided by the MIS agents and the Manila Police on October 18, 1950,
where most of the accused in these five cases were arrested.  One of the places raided on October 18, 1950 was 683 Pasaje Rosario,
Paco, Manila, where ap­pellant Lava
was arrested along with his co-accused Fede­rico Bautista, Simeon Rodriguez,
Victorina G. Rodriguez and Pedro Vicencio. 
Numerous documents, books, and articles were seized at that place where
Lava was arrested, and those documents were used as evidence during the trial
of these five cases in the court below.

Some of the documents thus seized, and which were presented as
evidence, were in appellant Lava’s handwrit­ing, or were signed by him using
his alias names.  This is clearly
established by the testimony of a handwriting expert that was presented by the
prosecution.  The con­clusion of the
handwriting expert was based on the speci­mens of Lava’s handwriting which were
used as standards in comparing with the handwriting and/or signature (in alias)
of the appellant that appear in the documents that were presented as evidence
against him.  It is contended by
appellant’s counsel that no genuine specimen of Lava’s handwriting was
presented as standard for comparison.  We
do not see merit in this contention.  We
find that the standards for comparison that were used were the documents marked
Exhibits FF-1 and FF-2.^[11]  Exhibit FF-1 is an application for employment
signed by Jose Lava.  The sig­nature
thereon was testified to by witness Eduardo Rom­ualdez (now Secretary of
Finance) as looking “like the signature of Jose Lava.” Eduardo
Romualdez was acquaint­ed with the handwriting of Jose Lava, having received
reports (Exh. FF), parts of which were in the handwrit­ing of Jose Lava
“not less than three or four times” while Jose Lava was a bank
examiner.^[12]  Exhibit FF-2 is a cardboard containing a list
of books requested by Jose Lava while the latter was detained in Bilibid
Prison. Buenaventura Villanueva, to whom the list was given, tes­tified that he
saw Lava writing the list on the cardboard. 
What appears on Exhibit FF-2 is certainly a genuine speci­men of Lava’s
handwriting.

The handwriting of a person may be proved by any wit­ness who
believes it to be the handwriting of such person, and has seen the person
write.  Evidence respecting the
handwriting may also be given by comparison, made by the witness or the court,
with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the
evidence is of­fered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.^[13]  The handwriting expert who made the comparison
in this case positively identified the handwriting of Jose Lava on the
documents presented as evidence against said appellant, specially the
handwritten names of Gregorio Santayana, Gaston, Gaston Silayan, Gavino ana
Greg.^[14]

Appellant Jose Lava did not take the witness stand to testify in
his own behalf.  Instead, he presented
wit­nesses to testify on his good moral character, his strong convictions and
his good citizenship.  An accused,
however, is not entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous good
moral character and exemplary conduct. 
When a court believes that an accused is guilty beyond reason­able doubt
of the crime charged, it must convict him not­withstanding evidence of his good
character and previous exemplary conduct.^[15]

We find that the evidence adduced during the trial has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Jose Lava was one of the top leaders of
the CPP, and that he was not only working to propagate the doctrine of com­munism
in the Philippines but was actually promoting an armed uprising against the
Government.  He did not actually take to
the field and participate in the armed attacks against constituted authorities,
but in the positions that he held in the CPP, he actually promoted, maintained,
and even directed the armed activities of the HMB which were aimed at
overthrowing the Government and implanting a new system of government in the Philip­pines.  As General Secretary of the CPP he signed, in
his aliases, the communications or transmissions of the Secretariat to the HMB
and CPP leaders in the field.  As We have
stated in this opinion, there was a tie-up between the CPP and the HMB, and
that the HMB was the military arm of the CPP. 
The CPP went underground sometime in November 1949.  It was precisely during the latter part of
1949 and during the year 1950 (before the arrests of the accused in these five
cases on October 18, 1950) when the HMB was most active in its armed operations
against the Government — or against the elements or the Army, the PC and the Police,
and against public officials and even against civilians.  The evidence against appel­lant Lava shows
that it was in 1949 and 1950 when he, in his capacity as one of the top leaders
of the CPP, active­ly participated in the armed struggle being carried on by
the HMB by sending directives and other communications to the leaders or the
HMB and to the heads of the region­al commands of the CPP who were operating in
the field.  He was, in fact, one of the
leaders of the rebellion.  He planned the
attack for the November 7, (1950) anniversary celebration, which was to include
the capture of towns near Manila
and the liquidation of enemies in the City by the different regional commands.

We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant Jose
Lava is guilty as principal in the commis­sion of the crime of rebellion, and
he should be punished accordingly.

2. Appeal of Federico Bautista

We find it conclusively shown by the evidence that:

Appellant Federico Bautista had used, or was known under, the
aliases: F. Payat, Fred, Freddie, and Freding. 
He was arrested by the MIS agents and the police on Oc­tober 18, 1950 at 683 Pasaje Rosario,
Paco, Manila, along with his
co-accused Jose Lava, Simeon Rodriguez, Victorina G. Rodriguez and Pedro
Vicencio.  He joined the CPP on August 8, 1949.  Testifying in his own behalf, he said that he
joined the CPP because of the failure of the ad ministration then to carry out
the terms of the Amnesty Proclamation which he helped to bring about; and also
because, of the ouster of six members of Congress from the central Luzon
provinces who were elected in the 1946 elections, of the frauds and terrorism
committed in sub­sequent elections and the graft and corruption in the
government.

He was a member of the National Finance Committee of the CPP,^[16]
of which committee Ramon Espiritu (co-accused) was the chairman, and Simeon
Rodriguez (co-accused) was a ranking member. 
As such member of the National Finance Committee part of his duties and
responsibilities was the procurement of, supplies, such as arms, ammunitions,
medicine, office supplies, clothing, etc., for the dissidents’ (both of the CPP
and of the HMB) organizations in the field. 
He became a member of the Military Committee of the CPP, with special
assignment as Chief of Inteligence GHQ.^[17]  He was also assigned to, and exercised
authority over, the armed forces [AF (HMB)] in Manila
and suburbs, which was called the City Command. 
He also Lad supervisory powers over the National Courier Division.^[18]

This appellant did not actually take to the field and
participated in the armed operations of the HMB, but he did staff work which
contribute to promote, maintain and direct the operations of the HMB.  Thus, there was presented in evidence a letter^[19]
written by this appel­lant to Leo (co-accused Cesareo Torres), under date of
July 10, 1950, transmitting the latest party decision regarding authorized
daily subsistence allowance of per­sonnel of the CPP organs, ranging from P1.00
to P1.20.  Cesareo Torres is the head of
the Technical Office in charge of propaganda. 
In a handwritten tabulation pre­pared by him,^[20]
which was sort Of a financial statement, there is shown an amount spent for
communications and for intelligence.  It
appears that of the total income of P8,006.80 for April, May and June 1950, 20%
was alloted for ammunitions and 10% for intelligence.  This financial statement, as finally
published, was certified to by Johnny (co-accused Ramon Espiritu) as head of
the National Finance Committee, and audited and approved by Tommy (co-accused
Honofre Mangila).  This document once
more indicates clearly that the HMB was being supported by the CPP.

There is a document labelled “Memorandum on Intelli­gence”,^[21]
a typewritten draft, which was shown to bear the pencil handwritten insertions
and corrections made by appellant Federico Bautista, indicating that this draft
was prepared by him.  Portion of this
document reads:

“Without deviating from the general orientation of expanding
evenly along the four branches of intelligence, viz: Poli­tical, economic,
cultural and military, the emphasis for the present is on military intelligence
both strategic and tactical.  This is in
conformity with an 4 in direct pursuance of the Party’s program of ‘all for
expansion and the armed struggle.’  The
mechanics of wresting power will event­ually be a military struggle, we must
have a continual basis by which we can estimate what the enemy intends to do
and the tena­city with which they will implement these intentions singly and
collectively.”

Appellant Federico Bautista was identified with the high councils
of the CPP.  He attended Politburo con­ferences.^[22]  Along with Ramon Espiritu and one Nicasio
Pamintuan, he sat to try, and found guilty, one Domingo Clarin, a member of the
HMB Trigger Squad, who was charg­ed of having squealed regarding the hold-up of
the Naric in Pulilan.  Appellant Federico
Bautista had previously assigned Clarin to guard Jose Lava.^[23]

We have carefully studied the evidence for the pro­secution and
the defense, as well as the argument of coun­sel in the appellant’s brief, and
We believe that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Federico
Bautista is one of the leaders of the rebellion jointly undertaken by the CPP
and the HMB.  We agree with the find­ing
of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission
of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

3. Appeal of Federico Maclang

Appellant Federico Maclang was arrested on October 18, 1950 by agents
of the MIS and the Manila Police at 1938 Interior 7, Felix Huertas, Manila,
along with Julita Rodriguez and Felipe Engreso — the latter two being among
those convicted by the lower court in these five cases, but Julita Rodriguez
withdrew her appeal.  He used the
aliases: O. Beria, Eto, Olibas, Manuel Santos, Manuel Santa Fe and Ambrosio
Reyes.

The evidence conclusively shows that this appellant is a ranking
communist, and he was responsible for the organization of the CPP in Manila
and Rizal.  He issued directives, plans
and instructions to the different units of the CPP in the field that were
working in close colla­boration with the HMB in the latter’s armed
operations.  By his own testimony he
revealed that he is a confirmed communist. 
He declared that he was one of the organizers of the PKM (a peasants’
organization) in Luzon, that he became a communist after
studying thoroughly the principles of communism in relation to the economic and
political con­ditions of the country; that he believes in the overthrow of
“imperialism” and the establishment of a “new democracy” in
the Philippines.

It is shown by the evidence that:

Appellant Maclang joined the CPP sometime in 1939; and he was a
member of the Politburo from 1944 up to the time of his arrest on October 18, 1950.^[24]

In the document labelled “Pagtuya sa Sarile”, shown to
have been written by him,^[25]
it appears that he was the Chief of the Organizational Bureau (OB) of the CPP
from 1948 until the time of his arrest, and that as an organizer he was responsible
for the organization of the Regional Commands (Recos) of the party.  He was also one of the members of the
Secretariat, and as such he actively participated in the deliberations and
decisions of the body.

In several letters of Enteng (Luis Taruc) to him, which were
identified during the trial, as well as in his letter to Enteng, a copy of
which was found in his possession and was identified by him,^[26]
his membership in the Secretariat is clearly shown.  As a member of the Secretariat he was
assigned the Supervision on all or­ganizational matters, on the youth problems
and acti­vities, and also on military affairs. 
Likewise, he was assigned supervision over the Trade Union Division
(TUD)) and the trade union struggle; also he had supervision over the news
section or the TITIS; and he was authorized by the Secretariat to review the
decisions of the Region­al Command (RECO) and, like appellant Jose Lava, only
those decisions which he did not approve were taken up by the Secretariat.^[27]  As chief of the Organizational Bureau he
issued, or approved the issuance of, circulars, plans, and directives to the
different organs of the CPP.^[28]

This appellant prepared the document entitled “Im­piltrasyon”.^[29]  In this document he discussed the problems of
infiltration and the methods or techniques to be followed by party members in,
infiltrating govern­ment offices, the armed forces, and the ranks of anti­communist
groups, in connection with the underground work of the CPP and the HMB.  He also prepared “Pakikibaka sa Pagani”^[30]
where he urged the peasants to fight for bigger crop shares, and the workers to
fight for better wages, pointing out that the government cannot meet the
demands of the working class so that the only alternative is to support the
“People’s Liberation Movement” and ef­fect changes through armed
struggle.  He wrote the
“Pangatawanan ang Kampanya sa Pagpalawak ng Ating Patanim at Pagpalitaw sa
Inuhi”^[31]
where he states the policy of the CPP regarding the expansion of the production
areas and the production of more crops to maintain and support the revolution
and to prepare the masses for self-govern­ment.

Likewise, he wrote the “Ang Kompiskasyon”, a cir­cular
issued by the Organizationa Bureau (OB), of which he was the head, to all the
organizational units of the CPP, explaining the Party’s theory of
confiscation.  This circular authorizes
confiscation us a means to raise revenue for the “People’s Liberation
Movement”.  This circular lists the
classes of individuals who are con­sidered enemies or the revolution and whose
properties may be confiscated.^[32]

When this appellant was arrested on October 18, 1950, there were found in his possession
documents which indu­bitably show the high positions that he occupied in the
CPP and the direct connections that he had with the opera­tions of the
HMB.  Thus, there is Exhibit N-52, which
is a partial report of Reco 2 regarding military operations during the
“Cry of Balintawak” celebration. 
In this report are stated the simultaneous HMB attacks at Camp
Makabulos, Tarlac, and at Arayat in
the evening of August 25, 1950.  There are also Exhibits N-56-57 which are the
reports from Reco 2 of the HMB attacks at barrio Capalad, Arayat on September 12, 1950, and at San Luis
on Septem­ber 13, 1950.  There was found in his possession, when he
was arrested, a file copy (Exh. N-202) of a letter ad­dressed to his comrades
in Regional Command No. 4, dated October
14, 1950.  The original of
this letter (Exh. M-292) was found at 1608-B Andalucia, apparently in transit
through the National Courier Division. 
It should be noted that it is in 1608-B Andalucia where Salome Cruz, the
Chairman of the National Courier Division, had her head­quarters.  In this letter appellant Maclang wrote:

‘”I received a letter to the SEC from Com Bonifacio, PBS, R-5,
dated Oct. 10, 1950.  Because of the urgen­cy and because the Comca
is Leaving at 12:00 a.m. this day, I, as in charge or military matters of the
SEC, in the absence of the SEC meeting I have ren­dered the following decision;

x          x          x

“ORDER: I hereby order to R-4 to take all action concerning
all the re­quests of the letter of Com. Bonifacio to the SEC.  Reject the idea of sending back these
deserters (men and officers) to R-5 and I am giving full authority to R-4 to
arrest and try all these said deserters. 
All actions should be based on our military rulings.”

The letter of Comrade Bonifacio referred to in the above-quoted
letter of appellant Maclang was found in his possession at the time of his
arrest.  A copy of this letter was found
in the possession of the appellant Jose Lava when the latter was arrested at
683 Pasaje Rosario, Paco, Manila,
on October 18, 1950.^[33]  It was shown during the trial that this
letter or appellant Maclang was transcribed from the stenographic notes taken
down by Julita Rodriguez on her notebook (Exh. M-31-E).  This Julita Rodriguez worked as a clerk with
appellant Maclang, and she was also arrested on October 18, 1950 along with Maclang and Felipe Engreso,
another employee of Maclang.  Both Julita
Rodriguez and Felipe Engreso were also accused in these cases.  The authority of appellant Maclang on
military matters is made manifest n the above-mentioned letter.

In another letter of appellant Maclang, which was his reply to
the letter he received from one Plaridel, regarding the plan for attack on November 7, 1950 celebration,^[34]
he said:

“Re-celebration, I am glad that you are actively preparing to
achieve the SEC objectives.  We have no
ob­jections on the towns that you have stated including Mcy.  Our only doubt here is Mrqn, because this is
very near enemy camp, however, proceed to your preparation and we will help you
on intelligence operations on said loca­lities in this connection, we have the
opinion that Com. Pacing will coope­rate with you in this task as we have been
informed that he is coming to your place.

“Re-request on arms and ammos, we are not yet in a position to
give you the assurance of aid, however, we are dealing with the smugglers to
pur­chase these ammos to supply such opera­tions.  Because it is not very sure, it will be
better for the Recos to cooperate on the preparation of ammos.”

There are letters of appellant Maclang to Luming (Salome Cruz),
one of the accused, which were presented in evidence, where he gave her orders
and instructions regarding the dispatch of couriers to the regional com­mands
and the activities of the National Courier Divis­ion.^[35]  Documents were also presented, which appear
to have been issued or approved by the Organizational Bureau of which this
appellant was the chief, dealing with the methods of improving the
communication system of the CPP.^[36]  All these indicate that appellant Maclang had
also supervision over the National Courier Division (NCD) of the CPP.

Appellant Maclang, in his defense, denied knowledge about the HMB
raids and ambushes.  We find, however,
over­whelming evidence that disproves his claim.  The evidence clearly shows that he
participated directly in planning, coordinating, supporting, and approving, the
HMB raids, attacks and ambushes.  He was
a member of the Secretariat of the CPP and participated in its meetings.  He was in charge of the military affairs of
the CPP; he gave orders to the Recos to attack the government forces; he
approved the plan of attacks against the City of Manila
and towns around Manila on November 7, 1959; he received reports
of HMB raids and attacks.  All these make
him, in contempla­tion of law, a leader of the rebellion.

There is, to Us, no doubt that by the high positions he held in
the CPP, appellant Federico Maclang was one of the leaders of the CPP that
promoted, maintained and directed the armed operations of the HMB to overthrow
the Philippine government.  We agree with
the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in
the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished
accordingly.

4. Appeal of Ramon Espiritu

Appellant Ramon Espiritu was arrested by the agents of the MIS
and the Manila Police on October 18,
1950 at 1608-B Andalucia Street,
Manila, along with Salome Cruz, Rosario Vda.
de Santos, Naty Cruz, Aurora Garcia, Lam­berto Magboo and Josefina Adelan.  He was known by the alias “Johnny”.

In his written statement,^[37]
he admitted that he was a member of the Politburo and the Chairman of the
National Finance Committee of the CPP. 
The evidence shows that he was a member or the Secretariat of the CPP,
and he participated in the deliberations and decisions of that body.^[38]  He was also one of the 15 members of the
Military Committee (MC).^[39]  He was the Politburo and Secretariat Supervisor
of the National Courier Division.^[40]
He had been assigned to various important positions in the CPP, like the
supervision of Trade Union Division (TUD) and the trade union struggle,
together with his co-accused Fe­derico R. Maclang.^[41]  He was also assigned to the City Committee to
reorganize the City Committee and the City Com­mand.^[42]  He was likewise assigned to supervise Luming
(co?accused Salome Cruz) in taking care of the sick comrades coming from
provinces.^[43]  He attended meetings of the Communists and HMB.  He was one of those who tried Huk mem­ber
Domingo Clarin, assigned to the Trigger Squad of the HMB, and found him guilty
of having squealed regarding the holdup of the NARIC at Pulilan.^[44]

In his defense appellant Espiritu testified that he had nothing
to do with the HMB raids and ambushes. 
Seeming­ly, to justify his membership in the Communist Party, this
appellant discussed the general history of labor and its unsavory relations
with capital, for which he blamed the feudal economy that had pervaded the
economic life of the Filipino people.  He
candidly recounted his efforts in trying to understand the cause of the
people’s economic ills, and the efforts of labor unions in demanding better
wages and living conditions for laborers.

Considering the tie-up between the CPP and the HMB, there can
hardly be any question that appellant Ramon Es­piritu, member of the Politburo,
of the Secretariat, and or the Military Committee, or the CPP, had actively par­ticipated
in promoting and maintaining the armed operations of the HMB, along with top
CPP leaders, Jose Lava, Fede­rico Bautista, Federico Maclang, and others.  We agree, also,with the finding of the lower
court that this appel­lant is guilty as principal in the commission of the
crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

5. Appeal of Iluminada Calonje

Appellant Iluminada Calonje, wite of appellant Ramon Es­piritu,
was arrested on October 18, 1950
at 1608-B. Andalucia St., Manila.  She was known by her two aliases: Luming, and
Salome Cruz.  In her written statement,
she admitted that she was the Chairman of the Nation­al Communication Division
(NCD) or the CPP from November, 1949 to May, 1950.^[45]

Documentary evidence shows her various positions in the CPP, namely:
Acting Chief of the Central Post of the Communications Division and in charge
of Sub-Posts; In-­charge of Couriers; In-charge of finance from.  November, 1949 to May 17, 1950; In-charge of
all Central Committee cadres when they came to Manila for medical attention;
In-charge of sick comrades coming from provinces under the supervision of
Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) in the National Commission; and Chairman of the
Hospital Group to take care of the sick and wounded from the City and
provinces.^[46]

The evidence further shows that Salome Cruz wrote several notes
and/or documents showing her activities in the National Communication Division,
Hospital Group and other Party organs. 
Thus, on July 4, 1950, she made hand­written notes on
“Sub-Posts” containing names (aliases) of regular and irregular
couriers of RECO 1 to 7, Dist. No. 5 and Pangasinan; on July 5, 1950, she also
made notes on “Regular na Dating at alis ng mga Korriers sa NCD napunta sa
bawat Recos”, which show the dates of arrivals and departures of the
couriers for Racos 1 to 7 Dist. No. 4 Pangasinan and Cavite; on May 5, 1950 she
wrote a letter to Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) informing the latter of the arrival
and departure of couriers of RECO 1 and the avail­ability for distribution of
the April 12 and 30 issues of TITIS; she also wrote letters to Beria
(co-accused Fede­rico Maclang)”, Payat and Fred (co-accused Federico
Bautis­ta), and Berting (co-accused Lamberto Magboo), regarding couriers and
the activities of the National Communication Division (NCD).^[47]  She also made handwritten notes on the
National Communication Division (NCD) Consolidated Report, showing the income
and expenses from May 1 to May 17, 1950 of the Central Post and the Out-Posts;
and a letter to Charing (co-accused Rosario C. Vda. de Santos) on May 17, 1950
instructing the latter to check up the Sub-Posts.^[48]

In her brief, appellant Salome Cruz claimed, among other things,
that the trial court erred in convicting her as principal, despite the fact
that her participation was only on inconsequential details, and her guilt had
not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

There is no evidence to show that appellant Salome Cruz actually
took part in the raids, attacks and ambushes perpetrated by the HMB.  It cannot be said however, that her role in
the plan to overthrow the Government was inconsequential, she having been in
charge of communications, transmitting orders and directives of the Politburo
and Secretariat to the HMB in the field until May 1950; she being in charge of
couriers, making notes of regular and irregular couriers, their arrival and
departures; she being in charge of the Hospital group to take care of the sick
and wounded from the city and provinces. 
These facts show that she was cooperating actively in promoting and
maintaining the armed activities of the HMB, considering the tie-up between the
CPP and the HMB.  The maintenance or
communications between the top leaders of the CPP and the units operating in
the field is very essential in the success or the rebellion.  It is in this connection that this appellant
played a very important role.

We agree with the finding of the lower court that appellant
Salome Cruz is guilty as principal in the com­mission of the crime of
rebellion, and she should be punished accordingly.

6. Appeals of Rosario C. Vda. de Santos

Appellant Rosario C. Vda. de Santos was arrested by the agents of
the.  MIS and the Manila Police, together
with co-accused Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Naty Cruz, Aurora Garcia, Lamberto
Magboo, and Josefina Adelan, in these five cases, at 1608-B Andalucia,
Sampaloc, Manila, on October 18, 1950.

The evidence shows that:

Appellant Rosario C. Vda. de Santos uses the alias
“Charing”.  In her testimony,
however, she claims that her real name is Aurelia Cayetano.  She was designated by the Secretariat of the
CPP In charge of Outpost of the National Communication Division, with the duty
to maintain discipline among couriers coming from without.^[49]  She worked under Salome Cruz (Luming) who was
the Chair­man of the National Communications Division (NCD) or the CPP.  This appellant was in charge of checking the
ir­regular couriers for Regional Commands, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Pangasinan.^[50]  She was a staff member of the NCD, and she
participated in the NCD meetings, took down minutes, and rendered reports.  She made reports to the head of the NCD.  One such report says:^[51]

“Naisasagawang maayos na pagtang­gap sa lahat ng dumating at
maayos na pagalis ng couriers.”

Another report was that one she made on July 12, 1950, about the
outpost:^[52]

(a)         
Reco 1, means of communication
still good and 2 couriers arrived June 25 and departed July 4.

(b)         
Reco 2, – The road is still clear
and the couriers of Pangasinan were already established there, thru Com.
Piping.

(c)         
Reco 3 – The road is difficult
that is the reason why the Post at San Jose is no longer used but that of San
Rafael.

(d)         
Reco 4 – The road is difficult
connection severed but D-4 is already connnected (Exh. 159-162).

As Chief of the Outpost, she made, on August 19, 1950, the
following report:^[53]

“(a)    Reco
1 – Couriers did not ar­rive, so no report.

(b)         
Reco 2 – Couriers arrived as the
PC are out daily in the field…

(c)         
Reco 3 – Road is also difficult.

(d)         
Reco 4 – Road is not difficult,
but no definite Post for the couriers.

(e)         
District No. 4 – 2 weeks no ar­rival
of couriers but special couriers in Com. Amat (now under arrest) arrived on 12
July 50.

(f)           
Cavite – Did not arrive last Sun­day
while the agreement was Saturday.

In a letter to her co-accused Luming
(Salome Cruz), she stated that she knew the circumstances surrounding the
killing, and the murderers of Norberto Icasiano, Mayor of Bulacan.^[54]  She even mentioned that she met the
deceased’s brother in a schoolhouse in Malolos, Bulacan, and that she had to
hide her face behind her umbrella in order to avoid being recognized.

Various documents were shown during the trial which were written
by her, and that they were written during meetings of the leaders of the CPP.^[55]

In her defense, this appellant testified that her co-accused
Ramon Espiritu requested her to stay with him as a household help with a salary
of P10.00 a month; that besides preparing food, she was also assigned the duty
of recording the letters delivered to and received at that place; that her real
name is Aurelia Cayetano, but she was using the name of Rosario C. Vda. de
Santos because she was a wanted women by the Japanese during the occupation for
having aided the guerillas, and she was known by that name among her friends
even after the liberation.  She admitted
that the name “Charing” was hers, but claimed that she did not know
the persons writing to her and that they were writing to her because she was
the one always in the house.

We find it proven that this appellant was a staff member of the
National Courier (or Communication) Di­vision of the CPP, and that she checked
and made reports on the arrival and dispatch of couriers.  The lower court declared her guilty as
principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion.  In Our appraisal of the evidence, however, We
find that she was merely executing the orders or commands of others who are
superior to her in the or­ganizational set-up of the CPP.  Considering that her activities took place
while the CPP was underground, and during the period when the armed operations
of the HMB were taking place, We find her guilty as a mere partici­pant in the
commission of the crime of rebellion under the second paragraph of Article 135
of the Revised Penal Code, and should be punished accordingly.

7. Appeal of Angel Baking

Appellant Angel Baking was arrested by the agents of the MIS and
of the Manila Police in his office at Room 504 Samanillo Building, Escolta,
Manila, on October 19, 1950, along with Narciano de Leon who is also one of the
accused in these cases.  His house at No.
1518 Calixto Dayco, Paco, Manila, was also raided.  From his office and his residence many books,
documents, and other papers were seized, which proved that this appellant was a
confirmed communist and was having close connections with the leaders of the
CPP.  Some of the books found in his
residence are: “The Third Five Year Plan” by V. Molo­tov;
“Reminiscence of Lenin” by C. Zetkin; Marx and Engels (Selected
correspondence); “Heroic Lenin-grad;” “Theory of the Agrarian
Question (Lenin); “Stalin” (G.I. R., James); “Constitution of
the Kirghs Soviet Socialist Republic”; “The Class Struggle in
France”, “Biographical Compilation of Communist Leaders outside the
Soviet Unions”, etc.  There are also
found reading materials labelled: “Comparative Outlines of Communism and
Capitalism showing advantages of communistic ideology”; Blue Record
containing outline of the Taruc story” (this con­tains draft of Taruc
story for filming and publication); “Political Economy” (typewritten
– this was shown to be used as text for HMB studies); “Stalin and the
National Colonial Question” by John Blake; etc.

We find, by the evidence, that:

Appellant Angel Baking used the aliases: Bayan, B. and
Boriz.  He joined the communist party in
April, 1949, although he had been identified with the leaders of the CPP since
the early part of 1944.^[56]  He had been as­sociated with top communists
like Jorge Frianeza, Luis Taruc, Federico Bautista, Simeon Rodriguez and Jose
Lava.  When the Technological Group (TG)
of the CPP was or­ganized, it was placed under the immediate supervision of
Boriz (Angel C. Baking) although the final supervision was under Greg (Jose
Lava).^[57]

In the meeting of the Secretariat of the CPP on Sep­tember 29,
1950, the attendance of Boriz in the meeting of the Military Committee was
discussed, and it appears in the record: “Com. Boriz is a competent
technologist, is ready to go out and ready to stay in the field as the Party
decides.”^[58]  The Secretariat of the CPP assigned him to
head the Special Warfare Division under the GHQ.^[59]  As head of the Special Warfare Division under
the GHQ, ap­pellant Angel Baking wrote a memorandum for the Secretar­iat
regarding the immediate installation of a wireless communication system between
the GHQ and the Secretariat.  Some
paragraphs of the memorandum read as follows:

“Briefly the main point to be dealt with pertains to
equipment, its procurement, technical description, distribution, installation,
operation and maintenance; technical personnel who will participate in the
solution of the technical aspects or the problems; the Code system, which is an
integral part or the WCS; and the non-technical implications of the prob­lems.

“Because of the underground nature of the system, several
problems not met in the legal installation of this system creep to the
surface.  The equipment itself is conditioned
by abnormal factors which are not met ordinarily; the personnel is difficult to
enlist; and the ins­tallation, operation and maintenance of the system become
unduly handicapped and difficult to perform.

“Since the transmitting unit in Manila cannot be fully used
without risk­ing its immediate detection by the enemy, transmissions to the
field from HQ (Manila) may partly be coursed thru the the legi­timate radio
stations.  This has always been done
before, and there is no reason why it cannot be developed now.  The es­sential requirements for this measure
would be:

‘(1)   A cadre to infiltrate the Corps of
broadcasters in the radio stations, which may be as­signed to the Cultural
Group.  This cadre should get a position
as broadcaster at specific hours, either as station announcer or newscaster for
the newspaper or time buyers at the stations;

‘(2)   This cadre should be given a code system thru
which what­ever message to be transmitted, may be coursed.’^[60]

Appellant Baking admitted having prepared the fore­going draft
but he claimed, in his testimony, that that draft was prepared way back in May
1948 at the request of one Jorge Frianeza who was a ranking member of the
CPP.  It appears, however, that when his
office in the Samanillo building was raided by the agents of the MIS and the
Manila Police this document was found torn in­side a waste basket, and this
circumstance made the lower court conclude that he wrote that draft not in 1948
but shortly before the raid on October 19, 1950.  The lower court further pointed out that his
explanation was flim­sy because of the numerous evidence which showed that he
supervised the Technological Group and the Special War­fare Division at the GHQ
of the CPP.  We agree with the
conclusions of the lower court in this respect.

Besides, there were found in his office at Room 504 Samanillo
Building at the time of the raid several U.S. 
Army technical manuals on Cipher System and Advanced Military
Cryptography, and these manuals have connection with the recommendation in his
memorandum for the use of a code system for transmitting messages thru
legitimate radio stations.

There are still, other documents which clearly in­dicate
appellant Baking’s cooperation with the leaders of the CPP in the furtherance
of the plan to seize power.  In the
document, marked as Exhibit L-33s, he made the following statement:

“To forestall errors in the plan­ning for the future, the
training of leading Cadres as economists should be intensified.  It is more than likely that by the time CPP
seized power, the struggle in Asia shall have been re­solved”.

There was found in the possession of Simeon G. Rod­riguez (one of
the appellants in these cases), the document marked Exhibit O-254 where it
appears that ap­pellant Angel Baking acknowledged having received from the
National Finance Committee of the CPP the sum of P45.00 for the Technological
Group (TG) of which he was a member. 
Simeon G. Rodriguez is a member of the Nation­al Finance Committee of
the CPP.

At the time of his arrest, appellant Angel Baking was a foreign
affairs officer in the Department of For­eign Affairs of the Republic of the
Philippines.  That he was using his
position in the Department of Foreign Affairs for intelligence work — and the
lower court calls this a manifestation of his “scheming mind” — may
be gathered from what he wrote in his diary as follows:

“There was a tactical error in my transfer to the new office
room the office was supposed to be oc­cupied by ambassadors and high-rank­ing
officials.  I transferred to it without
insuring my hold on the im­portant men of the department.  Thus I opened my flank and left my rear
unprotected, and made myself extreme­ly vulnerable.”

“Because of this, I find myself unprepared to handle that
problem.  Peter ordered Quiamco that I be
trans­ferred back to where I came from”.

“I also forgot that the impor­ant thing to remember is the
unbroken and steady…”

“AGB” (Exh. L-78e)

There is another document found in Baking’s re­sidence at 518-B
Calixte Dayco which was admitted by him to be his.  This document contains entries which indicate
his dealings with the CPP organizations and its members.  The entries are as follows:

“NFC ………………………………………..  P200

Graciano ……………………………………..  190

” ……………………………………………  100

Apolinario …………………………………….  100

Talas …………………………………………..  100

SGR …………………………………………….   20

Abe……………………………………………….   50

Godong ………………………………………..   50

Lake …………………………………………….   50

Mario…………………………………………….   50

Lamang ……………………………………….. 450″

The “NFC” had been shown to stand for National Finance
Committee of the CPP, and “SGR” for Simeon G. Rodriguez, a member of
the NPC of the CPP, who is also one of the appellants in the present
cases.  There were sheets of blank papers
seized from 742 Colorado Street, Manila,
the printing office of TITIS and the working place of Cesario Torres, also one
of the appellants in the present cases, bearing signatures of
“Apolinario”, “Mariano P. Balgos” and “Luis
Taruc”.

Considering the facts We have hereinabove-stated, We have no
doubt in our mind that appellant Angel Baking, as a confirmed communist, had
aided in the efforts of the leaders of the CPP to promote and maintain the
armed operations of the HMB to overthrow the government.  The lower court found this appellant guilty
as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion.  We have noted that the role played by this
appellant was that of a technician or adviser. 
Considering that he participated in the rebellion efforts of the CPP
while he was holding a public office, We agree with the finding of the lower
court, and he should be punished under the first paragraph of Article 135 of
the Revised Penal Code.

8. Appeal of Lamberto Magboo

Appellant Lamberto Magboo was arrested by the agents of the MIS and
of the Manila Police at 1608-B Andalucia, Manila,
on October 18, 1950, along
with the accused Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Rosario C. Vda. de Santos, Naty
Cruz, Aurora Garcia and Josefina Adelan. 
It must be noted that the place, 1608-B. 
Andalucia, is the headquarters of Salome Cruz who was the.  Chief of the National Courier Division of the
CPP.  The evidence shows that the other
persons who were arrested in that place namely, Naty Cruz, and Josefina Adelan
worked as couriers under Salome Cruz. 
Rosario C. Vda. de Santos also worked under Salome Cruz as in-charge of
outpost.  Aurora Garcia was employed by
her aunt, Rosario Vda. de Santos, as a maid and that she was selling the TITIS.

The evidence shows that:

Appellant Lamberto Magboo used the aliases Berting and
Eddie.  He admitted that he was a courier
of the CPP, and that he actually mailed letters and packages at the Bureau of
Posts and at the post office at the Far Eastern University; and he delivered
letters, boxes of medicines, canned goods, lanterns, and shoes, from 1608-B
Andalucia.  Street (house of appellant
Salome Cruz) to the La Mallorca Bus station, to the LTB station, at Altura
Street, Sta. 
Mesa, at Divisoria
Street, and at Celeridad
Street in Pasay
City.^[61]  He was a checker of the regular and irregular
couriers of Recos 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and Dist. No. 4 Pangasinan, and was also a
special courier or Dist. No. 4, c/o Reco. 4.^[62]

Considering that the Recos are the units of the CPP that are
operating with the HMB in the field, such that the person who acts as courier
from the headquarters of the National Courier. 
Division of the CPP in Manila to these Recos was actually working and
cooperating with the armed operations to overthrow the government, We find appellant
Lamberto Magboo guilty as a mere participant in the commission of the crime of
rebellion, under the second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code,
and he should be punished accordingly.

9. Appeal of Nicanor Razon, Sr.

Appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr., known also by the alias Elias Rubi,
admitted that he had been a member of the CPP since July 1, 1945. 
Among the documents found at 1608-B Andalucia, Sampaloc, Manila,
was the cadre registration and oath of this appellant as a member of the
CPP.  He was the secretary of Barangay I
SECCOM (Sec­tional Committee) II of the District of Tondo, and later rose to
the position of treasurer in the same committee.  He helped in distributing the TITIS, the
official organ of the CPP.^[63]

The record does not show that this appellant had testified in his
behalf, nor presented any evidence in his defense.  In his brief before this Court, however, this
appellant claims that the lower court erred in find­ing him guilty as an
accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion, no evidence having been
adduced to show that he had performed any act which would constitute a
cooperation in promoting the rebellion jointly undertaken by the CPP and the
HMB.

We find merit in the contention of this appellant.  We find that the evidence against this
appellant only show that he is a member of the Communist Party, and that he had
been secretary and later treasurer of SECCOM II of the District of Tondo.  There is no evidence regard­ing his actual
participation in the efforts of the lead­ers of the CPP and the HMB to promote
the rebellion.  His having distributed
the TITIS, the official organ of the CPP, is at most an act in the category of
a propaganda which in itself does not show that he advocated actual uprising
against the Government.  It has not been
shown that he collaborated in the efforts to advance the cause of the
rebellion.  The fact that he is a member
of the Communist Party and an officer of one of its committees is not a
sufficient basis for declaring him guilty as an accomplice in the commission of
the crime of rebellion.

In the case of People vs. Hernandez, G. R. Nos. L-6025-6026 this
Court held:

“ …. We do not believe that mere membership in the Communist
Party or in the CLO renders the members liable either of rebellion or of conspiracy
to commit rebellion, because mere membership and nothing more merely implied
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.”

We, therefore, declare that appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr. is not
guilty as an accomplice in the commission of the crime of rebellion, nor can We
hold him guilty of, the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion.  He should, therefore, be absolved of the
charge against him in the information.

Neither can We find him guilty of having committed a crime under
the Anti-Subversion Law (R.A. No. 1700) which outlaws the Communist Party of
the Philippines,
because this law was enacted only in the year 1957, whereas the information
against this appellant was files on October
27, 1950.  Again, in the case
of People vs. Hernandez, supra, this Court held:

“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 Act 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.”

10. Appeal of Marcos Medina

Appellant Marcos Medina was arrested by MIS agents on October 17, 1950 at 1028-B, Quezon
Boulevard. He used the alias Hiwara. He admitted
in his written state­ment^[64]
that he was a member of the Hukbalahap Squadron 25 with headquarters at
Kandating, Candaba; that he became a corporal of the Huks in 1944; and that he
was a member of the Organizational Committee, Reco 4, Laguna, from 1946 to
1949.^[65]  In 1949 (he studied at the Central Institute
of Technology, and while studying, he used to help HMB couriers Lydia
(alias of Alicia Villegas), and Celong (alias of Marcelino Calma) in carrying
things for delivery to Commander REG of Reco 4.^[66]  In his testimony he stated that the
Organizational Committee, of which he was a member, had the duty to go to the
barrios to teach and convince the people to join the HMB.^[67]

Testifying in his behalf, this appellant said that he was
maltreated at Camp Murphy
to make him sign the statement marked as Exhibits EE to EE-4.^[68]  However, Sotero Morales, who was the one who
investigated him, testified that Marcos Medina did not complain of any mal­treatment
when he was investigated.^[69]

We do not agree with the finding of the lower court that this
appellant is guilty as principal in the com­mission of the crime of
rebellion.  There is no evidence that he
actually participated in any of the raids and ambushes alleged in the
information, although he admitted that he was a Huk.  The evidence shows that he simply helped HMB
couriers.  We hold, however, that his
being a member of the HMB is a sufficient basis to find him guilty of the crime
of conspiracy to commit rebellion, punishable under Article 135 of the Revised
Penal Code.  In the case of People vs.
Hernandez, supra, this Court held:

“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 of up­rising, in which latter case he com­mits
rebellion.”

We therefore declare appellant Marcos Medina guilty of the crime
of conspiracy to commit rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

11. Appeal of Cesario Torres

Appellant Cesario Torres was arrested by the agents of the MIS
and the Manila Police on October 19, 1950 at his residence at 742 Colorado St.,
Manila, along with his wife, Rosenda Canlas Torres, and his co-accused, Arturo
Baking.  From his house the agents seized
subversive documents, and articles including a typewriter, a mimeographing
machine, mimeographing ink, stencils, and coupon bond papers.  Some of these coupon bond papers were blank
but bore the signature of Luis M. Taruc.

The evidence shows that:

Appellant Cesario Torres used the aliases: Leo and Leodones, and
he was also known as Cesario Yacat Torres. 
He admitted being a member of the HMB and of the CPP, that he was the
head of the Technical Office under the Propaganda Branch of the CPP, and as
head of that office he was in charge of typing and mimeographing the CPP
documents and leaflets, and the TITIS which was the of­ficial organ of the CPP.^[70]

Documents were presented during the trial which clearly prove
that this appellant was in regular com­munication with Federico Maclang, one of
the top leaders of the CPP and of the rebellion.  Thus, in one letter, he explained to Maclang
why the issue of the TITIS for the previous week did not come out; and in
another letter he informed Maclang that he would try to make the TITIS come out
every Sunday morning.^[71]  In a letter to Maclang dated April 6, 1950,
he inquired for the number of copies of “Suliranin ng mga Familia” that
should be printed; and in another letter he was requesting from Maclang P18.40
for the printing of 600 copies of the “Mapagpalaya”, the official
organ of the HMB.^[72]  Using the name Leodones, this appellant wrote
subversive poems calculated to arouse popular support for the cause of the CPP
and the HMB.  One such poem, entitled
“Ang Dalawangpong Taon Buhay ng PKP”, eulogized the CPP, advocated
armed revolt against the government and the liquidation or Liberals,
Nacionalistas, and priests.  The other
poems were “Gumising Ka Kabataan”, “Maiksing Kasaysayan ng
Kilusang Magbubukid sa Filipinas”, “Ang Ikawalong Taong Kaarawan ng
Hukbong Magpapalaya ng Bayan”, and “Ang Sigaw ng Bayan
Api”.  All these poems were
published in the different issues of the TITIS.^[73]

We find that appellant Cesario Torres played a very vital role in
the promotion of the armed struggle that was jointly prosecuted by the CPP and
the HMB.  He was admittedly a member of
both the CPP and the HMB.  His membership
with the HMB alone is a sufficient basis to hold him guilty of the crime of
conspiring to commit rebellion.  We
believe, however, that he did more than to conspire with the leaders of the HMB
and the CPP to commit rebellion.  He was
in charge of the publication and circulation of the TITIS which was the
official organ of the CPP, and of the “Mapagpalaya” which was the
official organ of the HMB.  It is through
these two organs that the people were being aroused to support the armed
struggle against the government.  While
it is true that this appellant did not go to the field to take up arms, the
provocative poems and articles that he wrote and pub­lished in the official
organs of the CPP and the HMB were just as effective to prosecute the rebellion
as the guns and other weapons used by the HMB in the field.

We agree with the finding of the lower court that this appellant
is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he
should be punished accordingly.

12. Appeal of Arturo Baking

Appellant Arturo Baking was arrested by the agents of the MIS and
the Manila Police on October 19, 1950 at 742 Colorado St., Manila, along with
his co-accused Cesario Torres and the latter’s wife, Rosenda Canlas
Torres.  He is the nephew of appellant
Angel Baking.

It is shown by the evidence that:

Appellant Arturo Baking used the aliases Red Bell, Eduardo
Santos, Arturo Calma and Ed.  He became a
mem­ber of the CPP in December 1949.^[74]  In August 1950 he was employed by his
co-accused Cesario Torres as as­sistant in the publication center of the CPP at
742 Colorado St., Manila.  He was one of those assigned as typist in the
Educational Department of the CPP, it having been admitted by him that the
publication center was under the Educational Department of the CPP.  As assistant to Cesario Torres he helped in
the printing, mimeographing and distribution of the TITIS, the official organ
of the CPP; as well as in the printing, mimeographing and distribution of HMB
documents.  His work included the
procurement of office supplies, and the keeping of records of CPP documents
that had been printed and distributed to the different officials and
organizational units of the CPP.^[75]  This appellant had studied and finished the
prescribed secondary course of the Communist Party, and was given a
certificate, “Kati­bayan sa Pagaaral”, attesting to his having
satisfacto­rily completed such subjects as the “History of National
Liberation Movement”, “Dialektika ng Materialismo”, “Po­litical
Economy”, “Estado at Himagsikan”, and “Ang Pag­kakatatag ng
Partido”.^[76]  By his own declaration this appellant
admitted having made studies about communism, took rigid tests in order to be
accepted to the CPP, and that he believed a communist government should be im­planted
in the Philippines.  In his testimony, he stated that he had developed
a deep-seated hatred against the agents of the law because or the predatory
acts that were committed by them on poor fishermen, and that on several
occasions, especially at various checkpoints, he saw the harsh treatment done
by the Constabulary soldiers to civilians. 
He bewailed the graft and corruption in the government.^[77]

We have no doubt that this appellant is a confirmed communist,
and that he was in full sympathy with the armed struggle being promoted by the
leaders of the CPP and the HMB in order to overthrow the existing govern­ment
of the Philippines.  Upon appraisal of
the evidence, however, We cannot agree with the finding of the lower court that
this appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of
rebellion.  We find that he was the
assistant of appellant Cesario Torres, who was entrusted with the publication
and distribution of the official organs of the CPP and the HMB, as well as of
the printing and distribution of the documents of those two organizations.  Being an assistant of appellant Ce­sario
Torres whom We have declared to be a principal in the commission of the crime
of rebellion, We hold that appellant Arturo Baking is guilty as a mere
participant in the commission of the crime of rebellion, under the second paragraph
of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and he should be punished
accordingly.

13. Appeal of Simeon G. Rodriguez

Appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez was arrested by the agents of the
MIS and the Manila Police in his house at 683 Pasaje Rosario,
Paco, Manila, on October 18, 1950, along with Jose
Lava, Federico Bautista, Victorina G. Rodriguez and Pedro Vicencio.

The evidence shows that:

Appellant Simon G. Rodriguez used two aliases: Lakindanum
(Laquindanum) and Sammy.  He was a member
of the National Finance Committee of the CPP since October 21, 1949.^[78]  When he was arrested on October 18, 1950
there were found in his house some P42,376.00 in paper currency in different
denominations.  Of the money that was
found in his house, it was conclusively shown that 65 P100-bills, 60 P50-bills,
P145.00 in PNB circulating notes and $310.00 formed part of the money that were
taken from the office of the Provincial Treasurer in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, when
the HMB raided that town in the night of August 26, 1950.  We have stated at the early part of this
opinion that on the night of August
26, 1950 some 400 Huks raided Sta. Cruz.  The cashier of the office of the Provincial
Treasurer was forced by the Huks at gun point to open the vault of the
provincial treasury from which the Huks took some P80,600.00.  It happened that the Provincial Treasurer of
Laguna, Mr. Balbino Kabigting, had a record of the serial numbers of the paper
money that was deposited in the provincial treasury which were taken by the
Huks, and after that raid Mr. Kabigting even issued a warning to the public
about the loss of the money — mentioning in the warning the serial numbers of
the money taken.  It was found out that
the serial numbers of the 65 P100-bills, of the 60 P50-bills, of the P145.00
PNB circulating notes, and of the $310 found in the house of appellant
Rodriguez tallied with the serial numbers of the paper currency that was taken
from the provincial treasury of Laguna. 
This ap­pellant, in his testimony, declared that the paper money whose
serial numbers tallied with those paper money that were taken from the
provincial treasury of Laguna formed part of the money that Jose Lava (one of
the appellants herein) brought to his house. 
Considering the high posi­tion that appellant Lava held in the CPP and
the fact that the armed operations of the HMB were promoted and directed by the
Secretariat of the CPP, of which Lava was a member, and the fact that appellant
Simeon Rodriguez was a member of the National Finance Committee, it is easy to
understand why Jose Lava brought to this appellant that money which was taken
by the HMB from the provincial treasury of Laguna.  Significantly, one of the evidence presented
during the trial was a receipt, dated October 5, 1950, signed by Lakindanum in
favor of Com. Torres (Casto Alejandrino, a well-known HMB commander) of Reco 4,
acknowledging receipt of P32,740, $310; and P145 in PNB circulating notes.^[79]  It could be that Jose Lava made Rodriguez
prepare that re­ceipt when he delivered the money, and the receipt was intended
to be sent to Com. Torres to assure the latter that the money was delivered to
Rodriguez.  That receipt was among the
papers seized when these appellants were arrested.  This is a clear indication of the connection
of appellant Simeon Rodriguez to the armed operations of the HMB, and the
coordinated work of the leaders of the CPP and of the HMB in the armed
uprising.

There are other documents clearly indicating the connection of
appellant Rodriguez to the HMB commanders in the field: (1) There is a letter
dated October 13, 1950, addressed to Com. Lakindanum (Simeon G. Rodriguez)
coming from Com. Torres (Canto Alejandrino) wherein the latter acknowledged
receipt of the letter and ar­ticles that were sent to him by Com.
Lakindanum.  This letter also instructed
Lakindanum not to send the watch­es to Reco 4.^[80]  (2) There is another letter, dated October 13, 1950, of Com. Lanao,
addressed to Com. Lakindanum, wherein the former was requisitioning from Lakin­danum
a radio set in this letter Com. Lanao, among others, said: “We would make
the attempt to provide you with an extra ration of camote leaves when you visit
us again”.^[81]  This statement in the letter of Com. Lanao
indicates that appellant Simeon Rodriguez used to visit the men in the
field.  (3) There is still another letter
that came from Com. Amor addressed to Com. Lakindanum, wherein the former
acknowledged receipt of all the things, including a radio tester costing
P30.00, that the let­ter had sent to him.^[82]  (4) Then there is a letter writ­ten by herein
appellant to Com. Beria (Federico Maclang) stating that he delivered the tester
to Com. Reg in the absence from camp of Com. Torres.^[83]
(5) There is a re­ceipt showing that appellant Rodriguez signed in the name of
the National Finance Committee, acknowledging receipt of the amount of P705.00.^[84]  (6) There is still another receipt signed by
herein appellant acknowledging receipt of P1,200 from the National Finance
Committee, which was prepared for accounting purposes.^[85]

This appellant admitted, in his testimony, his close association
with Jose Lava.  He also said that he was
inclined to believe in the tenets of communism and the use of force in case the
people decide to take poli­tical power in their hands.

We have carefully examined the evidence of the prosecution
against this appellant, and also the evidence which he presented in his defense
— consisting of his own testimony mainly denying the positive evidences
against him and of the testimonies or witnesses vouch­ing for his good
character and the fact that he was a businessman — and We have arrived at the
conclusion that this appellant is one of the top communist leaders who had
promoted and maintained the armed operations of the HMB in the field.  We agree with the finding of the lower court
that appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez is guilty as principal in the commission of
the crime of rebellion; and he should be punished accordingly.

14. Appeal of Marciano de Leon

Appellant Marciano de Leon was arrested, together with Angel
Baking at Room 504, Samanillo Building,
Escolta, Manila, on October 19, 1950.  He used the aliases Mar and Marcial.  At the time of his arrest, he worked in the
Personnel Section at the Headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary.  He admitted having supplied his co-accused
Federico Bautista with government documents and confidential information
regarding the HMB from the PC Headquarters. 
These were:^[86]

1.      
Memorandum to all PC Commanders re
Huk infiltration.

2.      
Memorandum to all PC commanders re
Loyalty Status of all PC personnel.

3.      
Memorandum on PC-Civilian
Relations.

4.      
List of PC Agents and their
addresses.

5.      
List of Persons wanted by the PC.

6.      
Letter on the subject:
“Yellow journalism.”

7.      
U.S.
Army Technical Manuals and Field Manuals.

We concur with what, the lower court said about this appellant:
“Considering the nature of the documents he admitted in his confession to
have been furnished by him to Federico Bautista, he contents of his confession
and the accessibility to him of those documents by reason of his position in
the Personnel Section of the Philippine Constabulary, the Court is inclined to
believe that he also took part in the conspiracy to overthrow the government by
armed struggle and did his bit by furnishing Federico Bautista with information
and records regarding the HMB activities obtainable from the PC
Headquarters,” We do not agree with the lower court, however, that this
appellant is guilty as principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion.  Considering the top position of Federico
Bautista in the CPP hierarchy, it cannot be denied that appellant Merciano de
Leon, by giving the information hereinabove­stated to Federico Bautista, had
cooperated or helped in the prosecution of the armed rebellion.  We hold this appellant guilty as a mere
participant in the com­mission of the crime of rebellion, under the second
paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and he should be punished
accordingly.

15. Appeal of Honofre Mangila

We find, by the evidence, that:

Appellant Honofre Mangila was arrested on Novem­ber 22, 1950 at 215 Leveriza, Pasay
City.  He used the aliases Miller and Tommy.  He admitted being a com­munist — in fact, he
said he was proud to be a com­munist — and being a member of the Central
Committee of the CPP.  He was also a
member of the Trade Union Division (TUD) of the CPP.  In the meeting of the Sec­retariat of the CPP
on September 1, 1950,
appellant Mangila was appointed auditor of funds and books of ac­count of the
National Finance Commission (NFC).^[87]  He actually audited the financial statements
of the NFC for the months of April, May and June, 1950; Mangila’s auditing of
the National Finance Commission’s account was approved by the Secretariat in
its meeting of Sep­tember 22, 1950.  He was also the chairman of the
organizational department (OD) for Manila
under the Orga­nizational Bureau of the CPP.^[88]

There is no question that this appellant is one of the top men in
the hierarchy of the CPP.  He was a
member of the Central Committee which is the body second only to the National
Congress of the CPP.  When the National
Congress is not in session it is this Central Committee that makes decisions
for the party.  While testifying in his
behalf he revealed his strong communist party discipline when he declined to
reveal, upon being cross-examined, the identity of the other members of the
Central Committee, and the members of the National Congress and of the
Politburo.  While tes­tifying he was very
outspoken in indicting the existing economic and social order in the country,
and asserted that it is only under the Communist Party when the laboring class
can expect a bright future.

During the trial letters signed by “Miller” or
“Tommy”, were presented in evidence. 
Those were let­ters addressed to Johnny (Ramon Espiritu) and to Luming
(Salome Cruz) concerning financial matters, meetings and other activities in
the CPP.^[89]

Considering that it is the CPP, as We have shown, that promotes
and maintains the armed operations of the HMB against the government, and
considering that appel­lant Honofre Mangila is a member of the Central Commit­tee
which is the most powerful body in the CPP when its National Congress is not in
session, and considering further that this appellant was even appointed auditor
to audit the funds of the CPP, We believe that this appellant is one of the
principal leaders of the rebellion as charged in the information.  We agree with the finding of the lower court
that appellant Honofre Mangila is guilty as principal in the commission of the
crime of rebellion and that he should be punished accordingly.

16. Appeal of Cenon Bungay

We find, by the evidence, that:

Appellant Cenon Bungay was arrested by Vicente Roco of the 20th
BCT and some members of the Manila Police on November 21, 1950, at 432 Isabel, Sampaloc, Manila.  This appellant used the alias Rufing.

In written statements, he admitted that he joined the Huks in
1946, and at the time of his arrest on November 21, 1950 he was the commander
of the HMB in the province of Batangas and the G-3 of Field Command (FC) No. 3
of the HMB.  While testifying in open
court, he declared that as the HMB commander he had 1,300 fully armed men
(equivalent to 4 HMB battalions) under him, and as a Huk commander he had been
receiving directives from the higher authorities of the HMB.  He revealed that Luis Taruc was the Supremo
of the HMB.^[90]  He also admitted his direct participation in
an encounter between the HMB and the government forces in Plaridel, Bulacan, on
March 27, 1950.  He stated that in obedience to an order from
Regional Command No. 4, he led his unit in the raid of San
Pablo City on March 29, 1950, resulting in the
death of Maj. Alicbusan.  He said that
their purpose was to overthrow the government by force, and to establish the
“New Democracy”.^[91]  He also dec­lared that he joined the Huks in
1942 because of poverty; that his parents were tenants in Hacienda Bahay Pare
at Candaba, Pampanga; that he stopped schooling after the 7th grade in order to
help support his parents and ten brothers and sisters; that realizing the
miserable con­ditions of the tenants, he joined the “Aguman Ding
Talapagobra” (ADT), the aim of which was the amelioration of the tenants;
that through this organization he real­ized that the tenants must organize to
promote their welfare and to prevent the abuses of landlords.  He fur­ther declared that in spite of the
sacrifices of the Huks for 3 years during the Japanese occupation, the Huks
representing the countless tenants, were ignored by the U.S. armed forces and
by the Commonwealth Government; and having been harrassed, persecuted and
frustrated in their aims to ameliorate the condition of the masses, the Huks
went underground.  According to him the
Huks felt more persecuted when Luis Taruc, the successful congressional
candidate in 1946 of the Democratic Al­liance, was denied his seat in Congress,
and that they lost faith in the government due to the frauds and terrorism
perpetrated in the elections that followed.^[92]

Appellant Bungay admitted that the HMB had to use force in order
to change the administration.  He said
that the men under him used arms given by the American soldiers and Communist
sympathizers.  He also revealed that
while he was the Huk commander at Cavite,
he had two encounters with government forces, one at Aliang, Malabon, on February 18, 1950; and the other at
Alfonso, Cavite, on February 22, 1950.  These admissions were fully corroborated by
Benjamin Advincula, a ranking officer and Secretary of Reco Command No. 4 of
the HMB and by Ronald Dorsey, a former Huk member.^[93]

There is no doubt that Cenon Bungay, as Huk com­mander, was also
a leader in the rebellion.  We agree with
the finding of the lower court that this appellant is guilty as principal in
the commission of the crime of rebellion, and he should be punished accordingly.

17. Appeal of Pedro T. Vicencio

Appellant Pedro T. Vicencio was arrested on Oc­tober 18, 1950 at 683 Pasaje Rosario,
Paco, Manila, along with Jose Lava,
Federico Bautista, Simeon Rod­riguez and Victorina Rodriguez.  He was also known as Pedring.  In a statement, signed by him at Camp Murphy
after his arrest, he admitted that he used to run er­rands, bringing
foodstuffs, medicines and other sup­plies intended for the HMB, and also
delivering packages that were labelled R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-5, which stood
for Reco-1, Reco-2, etc., respectively, to An­dalucia Street where Rosario Vda.
de Santos received them.^[94]  We have found, in this decision, that Rosario
Vda. de Santos was working under Salome Cruz who was the chairman of the
National Communications Division (MCD) of the CPP, and that she was in charge
of an out­post, checking the irregular couriers for Recos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and
Pangasinan, and she was staying at 1608-B Andalucia, Sampaloc, Manila.

Testifying in his own behalf, appellant Vicencio denied being a
member of the CPP nor of the HMB, although he stated that at the time of his
arrest, he was studying the principles of communism, and that he sympathized
with the Huks.  At the time of his arrest
this appellant was 20 years old, and he was a first year Liberal Arts
student.  He admitted in his testi­mony
that he delivered to Angel Baking notes sent by Simeon Rodriguez.^[95]

While it is not shown that this appellant actually took part in
the armed operations of the HMB, his having delivered foodstuffs, medicines and
other sup­plies which were intended for the HMB, and his having delivered
packages to Rosario Vda. de Santos who was in charge of the outpost where
couriers go to deliver, or to get, letters or articles intended for RECOS in
the field, clearly indicate that this appellant was actively cooperating in the
efforts of those promoting the rebellion. 
Being 20 years of age and a college student, it can be expected that he
knew that he was doing something for the communists and the Huks.  More so, because he was living with Simeon G.
Rodriguez, one of the top leaders of the CPP. 
He admitted having delivered notes sent by Simeon Rodriguez to Angel
Baking, another top leader of the CPP. 
The house of Rodriguez was the meeting place of CPP leaders.

We find this appellant guilty as a mere participant in the
commission of the crime of rebellion, under the second paragraph of Article 135
of the Revised Penal Code, andhe should be punished accordingly.

18. Appeal of Felipe Engreso

Appellant Felipe Engreso was arrested on October 18, 1950 at 1938
Int. 7 Felix Huertas St., Manila,
along with Federico Maclang and Julita Rodriguez.  At the time of his arrest, he was about 15
years old, and was living as a houseboy of one known to him as Ambros­io Reyes.

It appears that in a written statement that he signed before the
MIS agents, this appellant admitted having delivered letters to Mr. Espiritu
(Ramon Espi­ritu) at Andalucia St., Manila; to Cesar (Cesario Torres) at 742
Colorado, Manila; and to Gaston (Jose Lava) at Celeridad St., Pasay City.  It also appears in that statement that he
used to get the TITIS from Colorado St.
(residence of Cesario Torres and the CPP publication center) to deliver them to
Andalucia Street (residence
of Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz and Rosario Vda. de Santos) and, retained one
copy for Ambrosio Reyes.^[96]

Testifying in his behalf, appellant Engreso dec­lared that before
his arrest he never knew that his master, Ambrosio Reyes, is the accused
Federico Maclang.  He came to know his
master to be Federico Maclang only when they were already detained at Munting­lupe.^[97]

Upon a careful study of the evidence against this appellant, We
have come to the conclusion that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.  This appellant was
only around 15 years old.  We accept his
testimony that he did not know that his master was Federico Maclang, and that
all the time he knew him to be Ambrosio Reyes. 
He was simply a houseboy of Maclang. 
He had to obey orders to deliver letters or deliver copies of
TITIS.  There is no showing that he knew
the contents of the letters that he was made to deliver, or that he knew the
addressees to be communists.  The
Solicitor General recommends the acquittal of this appellant upon the ground
that there is no sufficient evidence to show his criminal intent.  We agree with the Solicitor General.  We, therefore, acquit appellant Felipe
Engreso of the charge against him in the information.

–                            –                                   –

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from
should be, as it, is hereby, modified, as follows:

1. In G.R. No. L-4974

Appellants Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon
Espiritu, Iluminada Calonje and Angel Baking are found guilty as principals in
the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first paragraph of
Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and every one of them is hereby
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ten (10) years of prision mayor
and a fine of P20,000, with the accessories provided by law, but without sub­sidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay their proportionate shares of
the costs.

Appellant Rosario C. Vda. de Santos is found guilty as a
participant in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second
paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and she is hereby sentenced
to suffer imprisonment of seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision
mayor with the acces­sories provided by law, and to pay her
proportionate share of the costs.

2. In G. R. 
No. L-4975

Appellant Cesario Torres is found guilty as prin­cipal in the
commission of the crime of simple rebel­lion under the first paragraph of
Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision mayor, and a fine of
F20,000, with the accessories provided by law, but without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay his proportionate share of the
costs.

Appellants Lamberto Magboo and Arturo Baking are found guilty as
participants in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the
second paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and every one of
them is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of seven (7) years and four (4)
months of prision mayor, with the accessories provided by law,
and to pay their proportion­ate shares of the costs.

Appellant Marcos Medina is found guilty of the crime of
conspiracy to commit rebellion under Article 136 of the Revised Penal Code, and
he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of five (5) years, four (4)
months, and twenty (20) days of prision correccional and and a
fine of P2,000, with the accessories provided by law, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay his proportionate share of the
costs.

Appellant Nicanor Razon, Sr. is hereby acquitted, with costs de
oficio.

3. In G.R. No. L-4976

Appellant Simeon G. Rodriguez is found guilty as principal in the
commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first paragraph of
Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suf­fer
imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision mayor and a fine of
P20,000, with the accessories provided by law, but without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay his proportionate share of the
costs.

Appellant Marciano de Leon is found guilty as a participant in
the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second paragraph of
Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suf­fer
imprisonment of seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor
with the accessories provided by law, and to pay his proportionate share of the
costs.

4. In G.R. No. L-4977

Appellants Honofre Mangila and Simeon Bungay are found guilty as
principals in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the first
paragraph of Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and every one of them is
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision mayor,
and a fine of P20,000, with the accesso­ries provided by law, but without
subsidiary imprison­ment in case of insolvency, and to pay their proportionate
shares of the costs.

5. In G.R. No. 
L-4978

Appellant Pedro T. Vicencio is found guilty as a participant in
the commission of the crime of simple rebellion under the second paragraph of
Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer im­prisonment
of seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, with the
accessories provided by law, and to pay his proportionate share of the costs.

Appellant Felipe Engreso is hereby acquitted, with costs de
oficio.

The Court takes Judicial notice, that, except for appellants
Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Sr., Pedro T. Vicencio, and Felipe Engreso who
are on provisional liberty under bail, and the rest of these appellants are
detained, and their detention dates back as of Aug­ust, October or November, of
the year 1950, as the case maybe.  The
Director of the Bureau of Prisons is here­by directed to determine the period
of detention that should be credited to the appellants who are under deten­tion
pursuant to the provisions or Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, and to
release immediately those appellants who are entitled to be credited with the
period of their detention equal to the penalty of imprison­ment imposed upon
them in this decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., concurs and in
addition filed a separate opinion.

Teehankee and Barredo,
JJ., did not take part.

Concepcion, C.J., and
Ruiz Castro, JJ., on official leave of absence.

---

^[1]
G.R. Nos. L-6025 and L-6026, July 18,
1956; 99 Phil., 515, 520, 541, 547, 551.

^[2]
99 Phil. 515, 535.

^[3]
Appellee’s brief, pp. 180-182.

^[4]
People vs. Camerino, L-13484, May
20, 1960; U.S.
vs. Cernias, 10 Phil. 682.

^[5] U.
S. vs. Santiago,
41 Phil. 793.

^[6]
People vs. Hernandez, supra; People vs. Romagosa, supra;
and People vs. Santos, supra.

^[7]
Tan It vs. Sun Insurance Office, 51 Phil. 212.

^[8]
Pages 61-62 t.s.n., Reconstitution.

^[9] Pages
33, 37, t.s.n., Reconstitution.

^[10]
Pages 429-432, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[11]
Page 548, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[12]
Page 410, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[13]
Sec. 23, Rule 132, Rules of Court.

^[14]
Page 564, t.s.n., Vol. III; Cho Chun Chac vs. Garcia, 47 Phil. 530;
Alejandrino vs. Reyes, 53 Phil. 974.

^[15] Anderson
vs. State, 72 Ga. App.
487; 34 S.E. (2d) 110; Underhill Criminal Evidence, 5th ed., Vol. 1, p. 430.

^[16]
Exhibit O-13-14, par. 1

^[17]
Exhibit O-106-107, par. 2

^[18]
Exhibit M-1726.

^[19]
Exhibit K-206.

^[20]
Exhibit O-582-589.

^[21]
Exhibit M-1806-1813.

^[22]
Page 429, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[23]
Pages 433-434, t.s.n., Vol, III.

^[24]
Page 803, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[25]
Exhs. N-77; N-212.

^[26]
Exhs. M-421-422; N-60.

^[27]
Exh. M-31-32, par. 18

^[28]
Exh. O-473-474.

^[29]
Exh. M-280-283.

^[30]
Exh. M-248-251.

^[31]
Exh. N-257-268.

^[32] Exhs.
N-269-271; M-1585.

^[33]
Exhs. N-175-176; O-480.

^[34]
Exhs. K-1396-1397.

^[35]
Exhs. M-244-254; M-258-267; M-269.

^[36]
Exhs. N-265-268; M-1570.

^[37]
Exhibit CC.

^[38]
Exhs. O-91-92, par. 2; O-308-309, par. 2; pages 500-512, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[39]
Exh. O-106-107.

^[40]
Exhibit M-25-26.

^[41]
Exhibits O-99-101, par. 3; O-312, par. 4.

^[42]
Exhibit O-334-337, par. 6.

^[43]
Exhibit O-643, par. 9.

^[44]
Pages 433-434, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[45]
Exhibits HH-4-to HH-8; page 780, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[46] Exhibits
L-318; M-1330-1331; M-21; O-441-444; O-643, par. 9; O-334-337, par. 10; pages
19, 26, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[47]
Exhibits M-1241; M-1242-1243; M-1268-1269; M-248, M-260; O-449; M-1257, M-1270
and M-1369.

^[48]
Exhibits M-1310; M-1365-1366.

^[49]
Exhibits C-318, par. 1; N-535-538.

^[50]
Exhibits M-1241, M-1255, M-1743, M-1765-1768.

^[51]
Exhibit M-54.

^[52]
Exhibit M-159-162.

^[53]
Exhibits M-152-153.

^[54]
Exhibit M-80.

^[55]
Pages 778-779, t.s.n., Vol. III; Exhibits M-54, M-56,M-57, M-58, M-60, M-61,
M-65.

^[56]
Exhibit O-281, par. 6.

^[57] Exhibit
O-316-317 par. 3.

^[58]
Exhibit M-35-38, par. 15.

^[59]
Exhibit M-35-38, par. 15.

^[60]
Exhibit L-33-P to L-33-Pa. See also Exhibits L-33-c and L-33-d which had been
shown to be Baking’s handwritten outline of his MEMO on the WCS.

^[61]
Exhibits GG to GG-10.

^[62]
Exhibits M-1241, M-1255, M-1244, M-1290-91; Pages 671-673, t.s.n., Vol. II.

^[63]
Exhibits DD-1, M-1423; Pages 654-657, t.s.n., Vol. II.

^[64]
Exhibit EE to EE-4.

^[65]
Page 743, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[66]
Exhibits EE-2 to EE-3.

^[67]
Pages 657-658, t.s.n., Vol. II.

^[68]
Pages 744-746, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[69]
Page 669, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[70]
Exhibits V-V-4; Pages 626-628 t.s.n., Vol. II.

^[71]
Exhibits M-1054 and M-1056.

^[72]
Exhibits M-171 and M-172.

^[73]
Exhibits K-189, M-1660, M-1666 to M-1670.

^[74]
Exhibit W-3, par. 7.

^[75]
Exhibits W, W-1, K-208; Page 841, t.s. n. Vol. III.

^[76]
Exhibit. L-145.

^[77]
Pages 834-836, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[78]
Exhibit O-13-14, par. 1.

^[79]
Exhibits O-572, O-572a-1, O-572 ab-1.

^[80]
Exhibit O-577.

^[81]
Exhibit O-578.

^[82]
Exhibit O-576.

^[83]
Exhibit O-505-506.

^[84]
Exhibit M-10.

^[85]
Exhibit O-9.

^[86] Exhibits
BB to BB-7, p. 610, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[87]
Exhibits O-643, par. 8; Pages 715, 729, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[88]
Exhibits Z to Z-11.

^[89]
Exhibits M-570, M-1472-1474.

^[90]
Exhibits LL to LL-7; Pages 670, 673, t.s.n. Vol. III.

^[91]
Page 428, t.s.n., Vol. I; Page 671, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[92]
Pages 634-35, 637, 666, 689, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[93]
Pages 668-670, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[94]
Pages 172, 196, 198, t.s.n., Vol. II; Page 682,, t.s.n., Vol. IV; Pages 3 and
6, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[95]
Exhibits JJ to JJ-7; Pages 3 and 6, t.s.n., Vol. III.

^[96]
Exhibits SS to SS-3.

^[97]
Pages 620-623, t.s.n., Vol. III.

---

6 pt
6 pt
0
3