THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ABUNDIO ROMAGOSA ALIAS DAVID, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This appeal is related to the case of People vs. Federico Geronimo
alias Cmdr. Oscar, et al., G. R. No. L-8936, decided by this Court on
October 23, 1956 (100 Phil., 90; 53 Off. Gaz. No. 1, 68).

Herein appellant Abundio Romagosa alias David was, in an information
filed by the Provincial Fiscal, accused in the Court of First Instance of
Camarines Sur of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and
kidnappings, under three counts that are the last three of the five counts
charged against Federico Geronimo, et al., in said case No. G. R. L-8936,
supra:

“That on or about May 28, 1946 and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto
and continuously up to the present time in the province of Camarines Sur,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and in other
municipalities, cities and provinces and other parts of the country where they
have chosen to carry out their rebellious activities, the above-named accused
being then ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan
(HMB) or otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) the latter being the armed
force of said Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) having come to an
agreement and decide to commit the crime of Rebellion, and therefore, conspiring
together and confederating among themselves with all of the thirty-one accused
in criminal case Nos. 14071, 142S2 14315, 14270, 15344 and with all the accused
in criminal case number 19166 of the Court of First Instance of Manila with the
other members, officers and/or affiliates of the Communist Party of the
Philippines and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan and with many others whose
identities and whereabouts are still unknown, acting in accordance with their
conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, and mutually helping one another, did,
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, help support, promote,
maintain, direct and/or command the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) or the Hukbong
Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB), to rise publicly and take arms against the
government of the Republic of the Philippines, or otherwise participate in such
public armed uprisings for the purpose of removing the territory of the
Philippines from the allegiance to the government and laws thereof, as in fact
the said Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB) or the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) pursuant
to such conspiracy, have risen publicly and taken arms against the Government of
the Republic of the Philippines to attain said purpose, by then and there making
armed raids, sorties, and ambuscades, attacks against the Philippine
Constabulary, the civilian guards, the Police and the Army.Patrols and other
detachments as well as upon innocent civilians, and as a necessary means to
commit the crime of Rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance
thereof, have then and there committed wanton acts of murder, pillage, looting,
plunder, kidnappings and planned destructions of private and public property and
plotted the liquidation of government officials, to create and spread disorder,
terror, confusion, chaos and fear so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the
aforesaid purpose, among which are as follows to wit:

1. That on or about the years 1951 to 1952 in the municipality of Paaacao,
   Camarines Sur, Philippines, a group of Armed Huks under Commander Rustum raided
   the house of one Nemesio Palo, a Police sergeant of Libmanan, Camarines Sur and
   as a result, said HUKS were able to capture said Nemesio Palo and once captured,
   with evident premeditation, treachery and intent to kill, stab, shot and cut the
   neck of said Nemesio Palo thereby causing the instantaneous death of Nemesio
   Palo.

2. That on or about January 31, 1953, at barrio of Santa Rita, Del Gallego,
   Camarines Sur a group of HMBS with Pederico Geronimo alias Commander
   Oscar ambushed and fired upon an Army Patrol headed by CPL Bayrante, resulting
   in seriously wounding of PFC Pancracio Torrado and Eusebio Gruta, a
   civilian.

3. That on or about February 1954 at barrio Cotmo, San Fernando, Camarines Sur,
   Abundio Romagosa, one of a group of four HMBS led by accused Commander Oscar
   with evident premeditation, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously killed one
   Policarpio Tipay, a barrio lieutenant.”

As in the case of Federico Geronimo, appellant Romagosa, upon arraignment,
entered a plea of guilty to the information. In view of the voluntary plea of
guilty, the prosecution recommended that the penalty of life imprisonment be
imposed on the accused, on the ground that the charge being a complex crime of
rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, the penalty provided for by
law is the maximum of the most serious crime which is murder. Counsel for the
accused, on the other hand, argued that the proper penalty imposable upon the
accused was only prision mayor, since there is no such complex crime as
rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, because the latter being the
natural consequences of the crime of rebellion, the crime charged against the
accused should be considered only as simple rebellion.

On October 13, 1954, the lower court rendered judgment finding accused
Romagosa guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and
kidnappings; and giving him the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary plea of guilty, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua; to pay a fine of P10,000; to indemnify the heirs of the two
persons killed named in the information, in the sum of P6,000.00 each; and to
pay the costs of the proceedings.

From the judgment accused Romagosa appealed to this Court, insisting that
there is no crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, and
that he should have been convicted only of simple rebellion and imposed the
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period, in view of his voluntary
plea of guilty.

The question of whether there is a complex crime of rebellion with murder,
robbery, and kidnapping under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, is exactly the
same question raised and decided in the cases of People vs. Hernandez, et al.,* 52 O.G. No. 11, 5506, and People vs. Geronimo,
supra. None of the members of this Court has found reason to change his
respective stand on the matter as expressed in the Geronimo case, wherein the
majority of this Court held that where the crimes of murders, robberies, and
kidnappings are committed as a means to or in furtherance of the rebellion
charged, they are absorbed by, and form part and parcel of, the rebellion, and
that therefore, the accused can be convicted only of the simple crime of
rebellion. Consistently with that precedent, we hold that the lower court erred
in holding appellant Romagosa guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with
murders, robberies, and kidnappings, and in imposing upon him the penalty for
such crime.

As in the Geronimo case, there is the further question of whether, in view of
appellant’s plea of guilty to the information, he should be deemed to have
admitted the commission of the simple crime of rebellion alone, or of rebellion
and other separate crimes, if any of the counts of the information charges
crimes independent of and not constituting essential acts or ingredients of the
rebellion charged. As already stated, the three counts of the information
against herein appellant Romagosa are exactly the same as the last three of the
five counts charged against Federico Geronimo (G. R. No. L-8936). As ruled by
the majority in the preceding case, the first count under the present
information (the third count against Geronimo) does not charge appellant’s
participation and can not, therefore, be taken into consideration in this case;
the second (the fourth count against Geronimo) alleges an essential act of
rebellion and is absorbed by that crime; while the third (the fifth count
against Geronimo) charges the murder of one Policarpio Tibay, a barrio
lieutenant, which killing, though committed within the jurisdiction of the lower
court, does not appear to be related to the rebellion and hence constitutes an
independent offense in itself.

The same majority of six justices of this Court maintain their view expressed
in the Geronimo case that by his plea of guilty, appellant has admitted the
commission of the independent crime of murder alleged in count 3 of the
information, the averment that said crime was perpetrated “in furtherance” of
the rebellion being a mere conclusion and not a bar to appellant’s conviction
and punishment for said offense, appellant having failed, at the arraignment, to
object to the information on the ground of multiplicity of crimes charged.
Therefore, appellant must be held guilty, and sentenced for the commission, of
two separate offenses, simple rebellion and murder.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is modified in the sense that appellant
Abundio Romagosa alias David is convicted of the crimes of simple
rebellion and murder; and considering the mitigating effect of his plea of
guilty, appellant is sentenced for the rebellion: to suffer 8 years of
prision mayor and to pay a fine of P10,000.00 (without subsidiary
imprisonment pursuant to Art. 38 of the Revised Penal Code), and for the murder:
to an indeterminate sentence of not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision
mayor as minimum and not more than 18 years of reclusion temporal as
maximum; to indemnify the heirs of Policarpio Tibay in the sum of P6,000.00
solidarily with Federico Geronimo, alias Commander Oscar (G.R. No. L-8936), and
others adjudged guilty of having participated in the slaying of said deceased;
and to pay the costs. So Ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, and Felix,
JJ., concur.

MONTEMAYOR, J.:

I concur and dissent for the same reasons given in my concurring and
dissenting opinion in the case of People vs. Geronimo, (100 Phil., 90; 53 Off.
Gaz. [1.], 68).

LABRADOR, J.:

I dissent for reasons contained in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice M.
R. Montemayor in the Hernandez cases.

ENDENCIA, J.:

I stand on my dissenting opinion expressed in the Geronimo and Hernandez
cases.

 

 

---

DISSENTING

PADILLA, J.,

I am of the opinion that the judgement appealed from should be affirmed for
the same reasons stated in my opinion in the case of People vs. Geronimo, 100
Phil., 90; 53 Off. Gaz., 68, 92.

 

---

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING

 

CONCEPCION, J.,

In the information herein, it alleged:

“That on or about May 28, 1946, * * * in the province of Camarines Sur,
Philippines, * * * the above-named accused being then ranking officers and/or
members * * * of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Hukbong
Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB) having come to an agreement and decide to commit the
crime of rebellion and * * * conspiring together and confederating among
themselves with all the * * * accused in criminal cases Nos. l4071, 14232,
14315, 15344 and * * * 19166 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, * * *
acting in accordance with their conspirary and in furtherance thereof, *
* * did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, help support,
promote, maintain, direct and/or command the Hukbalahaps * * * to rise publicly
against the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, * * * for the purpose
of removing the territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to the
government and laws thereof * * * and as a necessary means to commit the crime
of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, have then and
there committed wanton acts of murder * * * and plotted the liquidation of
government officials, * * * so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the
aforesaid purpose, among which are as follows:

‘3. That on or about February at barrio Cotmo, San Fernando, Camarines Sur,
Abundio Romagosa, one of a group of four HMBS led by accused Commander
Oscar with evident premeditation, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
killed one Policarpio Tipay, a barrio lieutenant.‘” (Underscoring
ours.)

In the light of the specific allegation in said information to the effect
that the killing of Policarpio Tipay, a barrio lieutenant, was committed by
Abundio Romagosa, “in accordance with” his conspiracy with other persons “to
commit the crime of rebellion” * * * and “as a necessary means to commit the
crime of rebellion in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof * * *
so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose.” I find it
difficult, not to say impossible, to conclude that said killing is “not related”
to the charge of rebellion and constitutes in itself an “independent offense.”
Besides, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the record before Us, to show
that this allegation of the information is inaccurate. What is more, inasmuch as
appellant is being sentenced upon his plea of guilty, we should confine
ourselves, strictly, to the allegations of said Information, in the
determination of the crime or crimes committed by him and in the imposition of
the corresponding penalty.

In fact, had he entered a plea of not guilty, appellant would have been
entitled to object to any evidence tending to prove that the killing of
Policarpio Tipay was “independent” of and “not related” to the crime of
rebellion charged in the information. Indeed, had he moved to quash the
information upon the ground that it charges more than one offense, it would have
been proper to deny the motion for the reason that only one offense was meant to
be, and is actually, alleged In said information. In other words, appellant had
never been advised that he is being accused of more than one (1) offense, and,
hence, his conviction for murder of Policarpio Tipay, as if it were a completely
distinct offense, independent and separate from that of rebellion, would be a
denial of due process of law, one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in
our Constitution.

Although, evidently, the decision in the case at bar merely adheres to the
view of the majority in People vs. Geronimo (100 Phil., 90; 53 Off. Gaz.,
68)—which was not shared by five (5) members of this Court (Chief Justice
Paras and Justices Bengzon, Alex. Reyes, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L.)—I am
constrained, to dissent, therefore, insofar appellant is convicted of murder,
and sentenced accordingly, in addition to simple rebellion.

 

---

*99 Phil., 515.