EN BANC

[G.R. No. 125299. January 22, 1999]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENCIO DORIA y BOLADO, and VIOLETA
GADDAO y CATAMA @ "NENETH," accused-appellants.

DECISION
PUNO, J.:

On December 7, 1995, accused-appellants Florencio Doria y Bolado and Violeta Gaddao y Catama @
"Neneth" were charged with violation of Section 4, in relation to Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972.[1] The information reads:

"That on or about the 5th day of December, 1995 in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping and aiding one another and without having been authorized by
law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, administer, deliver and give away
to another eleven (11) plastic bags of suspected marijuana fruiting tops weighing 7,641.08 grams in
violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW."[2]

The prosecution contends the offense was committed as follows: In November 1995, members of the North
Metropolitan District, Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Command (Narcom), received information from
two (2) civilian informants (CI) that one "Jun" was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City. The
Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrest "Jun" in a buy-bust operation. As arranged by one of the CI's, a
meeting between the Narcom agents and "Jun" was scheduled on December 5, 1995 at E. Jacinto Street in
Mandaluyong City.
On December 5, 1995, at 6:00 in the morning, the CI went to the PNP Headquarters at EDSA, Kamuning,
Quezon City to prepare for the buy-bust operation. The Narcom agents formed Team Alpha composed of P/Insp.
Nolasco Cortes as team leader and PO3 Celso Manlangit, SPO1 Edmund Badua and four (4) other policemen as
members. P/Insp. Cortes designated PO3 Manlangit as the poseur-buyer and SPO1 Badua as his back-up, and the
rest of the team as perimeter security. Superintendent Pedro Alcantara, Chief of the North Metropolitan District
PNP Narcom, gave the team P2,000.00 to cover operational expenses. From this sum, PO3 Manlangit set
aside P1,600.00-- a one thousand peso bill and six (6) one hundred peso bills[3]-- as money for the buy-bust
operation. The market price of one kilo of marijuana was then P1,600.00. PO3 Manlangit marked the bills with
his initials and listed their serial numbers in the police blotter.[4] The team rode in two cars and headed for the
target area.
At 7:20 of the same morning, "Jun" appeared and the CI introduced PO3 Manlangit as interested in buying
one (1) kilo of marijuana. PO3 Manlangit handed "Jun" the marked bills worth P1,600.00. "Jun" instructed PO3
Manlangit to wait for him at the corner of Shaw Boulevard and Jacinto Street while he got the marijuana from his
associate.[5] An hour later, "Jun" appeared at the agreed place where PO3 Manlangit, the CI and the rest of the
team were waiting. "Jun" took out from his bag an object wrapped in plastic and gave it to PO3 Manlangit. PO3
Manlangit forthwith arrested "Jun" as SPO1 Badua rushed to help in the arrest. They frisked "Jun" but did not find
the marked bills on him. Upon inquiry, "Jun" revealed that he left the money at the house of his associate named
"Neneth."[6] "Jun" led the police team to "Neneth's" house nearby at Daang Bakal.
The team found the door of "Neneth's" house open and a woman inside. "Jun" identified the woman as his
associate.[7] SPO1 Badua asked "Neneth" about the P1,600.00 as PO3 Manlangit looked over "Neneth's" house.
Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. He saw that one of the box's
flaps was open and inside the box was something wrapped in plastic. The plastic wrapper and its contents
appeared similar to the marijuana earlier "sold" to him by "Jun." His suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit entered
"Neneth's" house and took hold of the box. He peeked inside the box and found that it contained ten (10) bricks
of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.
Simultaneous with the box's discovery, SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from "Neneth."[8] The
policemen arrested "Neneth." They took "Neneth" and "Jun," together with the box, its contents and the marked
bills and turned them over to the investigator at headquarters. It was only then that the police learned that "Jun"
is Florencio Doria y Bolado while "Neneth" is Violeta Gaddao y Catama. The one (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves
recovered from "Jun" plus the ten (10) bricks recovered from "Neneth's" house were examined at the PNP Crime
Laboratory.[9] The bricks, eleven (11) in all, were found to be dried marijuana fruiting tops of various weights
totalling 7,641.08 grams.[10]
The prosecution story was denied by accused-appellants Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao. Florencio
Doria, a 33-year old carpenter, testified that on December 5, 1995, at 7:00 in the morning, he was at the gate of
his house reading a tabloid newspaper. Two men appeared and asked him if he knew a certain "Totoy." There
were many "Totoys" in their area and as the men questioning him were strangers, accused-appellant denied
knowing any "Totoy." The men took accused-appellant inside his house and accused him of being a pusher in
their community. When accused-appellant denied the charge, the men led him to their car outside and ordered
him to point out the house of "Totoy." For five (5) minutes, accused-appellant stayed in the car. Thereafter, he
gave in and took them to "Totoy's" house.
Doria knocked on the door of "Totoy's" house but no one answered. One of the men, later identified as PO3
Manlangit, pushed open the door and he and his companions entered and looked around the house for about
three minutes. Accused-appellant Doria was left standing at the door. The policemen came out of the house and
they saw Violeta Gaddao carrying water from the well. He asked Violeta where "Totoy" was but she replied he
was not there. Curious onlookers and kibitzers were, by that time, surrounding them. When Violeta entered her
house, three men were already inside. Accused-appellant Doria, then still at the door, overheard one of the men
say that they found a carton box. Turning towards them, Doria saw a box on top of the table. The box was open
and had something inside. PO3 Manlangit ordered him and Violeta to go outside the house and board the car.
They were brought to police headquarters where they were investigated.
Accused-appellant Doria further declared that his co-accused, Violeta Gaddao, is the wife of his
acquaintance, Totoy Gaddao. He said that he and Totoy Gaddao sometimes drank together at the neighborhood
store. This closeness, however, did not extend to Violeta, Totoy's wife.[11]
Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao, a 35-year old rice vendor, claimed that on December 5, 1995, she was at
her house at Daang Bakal, Mandaluyong City where she lived with her husband and five (5) children, namely,
Arvy, aged 10, Arjay, aged 8, the twins Raymond and Raynan, aged 5, and Jason, aged 3. That day, accused-
appellant woke up at 5:30 in the morning and bought pan de sal for her children's breakfast. Her husband, Totoy,
a housepainter, had left for Pangasinan five days earlier. She woke her children and bathed them. Her eldest son,
Arvy, left for school at 6:45 A.M. Ten minutes later, she carried her youngest son, Jayson, and accompanied Arjay
to school. She left the twins at home leaving the door open. After seeing Arjay off, she and Jayson remained
standing in front of the school soaking in the sun for about thirty minutes. Then they headed for home. Along the
way, they passed the artesian well to fetch water. She was pumping water when a man clad in short pants and
denim jacket suddenly appeared and grabbed her left wrist. The man pulled her and took her to her house. She
found out later that the man was PO3 Manlangit.
Inside her house were her co-accused Doria and three (3) other persons. They asked her about a box on top
of the table. This was the first time she saw the box. The box was closed and tied with a piece of green straw. The
men opened the box and showed her its contents. She said she did not know anything about the box and its
contents.
Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao confirmed that her co-accused Florencio Doria was a friend of her
husband, and that her husband never returned to their house after he left for Pangasinan. She denied the charge
against her and Doria and the allegation that marked bills were found in her person.[12]
After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 156, Pasig City convicted the accused-appellants. The trial court
found the existence of an "organized/syndicated crime group" and sentenced both accused-appellants to death
and pay a fine of P500,000.00 each. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, the guilt of accused, FLORENCIO DORIA y BOLADO @ "Jun" and VIOLETA GADDAO y
CATAMA @ "Neneth" having been established beyond reasonable doubt, they are both CONVICTED
of the present charge against them.

According to the amendatory provisions of Sec. 13 of Republic Act No. 7659 which cover violations
of Sec. 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 and which was exhaustively discussed in People v. Simon, 234
SCRA 555, the penalty imposable in this case is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from
five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. Taking into consideration, however, the
provisions of Sec. 23, also of Republic Act No. 7659 which explicitly state that:

'The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any person who belongs
to an organized/syndicated crime group.

An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating,

confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any
crime.'

the Court is hereby constrained to sentence (hereby sentences) said FLORENCIO DORIA y BOLADO
@ "Jun" and VIOLETA GADDAO y CATAMA @ "Neneth" to DEATH and to pay a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) each without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to
pay the costs.

The confiscated marijuana bricks (7,641.08 grams) shall be turned over to the Dangerous Drugs
Board, NBI for destruction in accordance with law.

Let a Commitment Order be issued for the transfer of accused DORIA from the Mandaluyong City
Jail to the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City and also for accused GADDAO for her transfer to the
Correctional Institute for Women, Mandaluyong City.
Let the entire records of this case be forwarded immediately to the Supreme Court for mandatory
review.

SO ORDERED."[13]

Before this Court, accused-appellant Doria assigns two errors, thus:

"I

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES
FOR THE PROSECUTION WHEN THEIR TESTIMONIES WERE SHOT WITH DISCREPANCIES,
INCONSISTENCIES AND THAT THE CORPUS DELICTI OF THE MARIJUANA ALLEGEDLY TAKEN FROM
APPELLANT WAS NOT POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED BY THE POSEUR-BUYER.

II

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING AS EVIDENCE THE MARIJUANA FRUITINGS
FOUND INSIDE THE CARTON BOX AS THESE WERE OBTAINED THROUGH A WARRANTLESS SEARCH
AND DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE."[14]

Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao contends:

"I

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE INCREDIBILITY OF THE
POLICE VERSION OF THE MANNER THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST AS CONDUCTED.

II

THE PNP OFFICERS' VERSIONS AS TO WHERE THE BUY-BUST MONEY CAME FROM ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH ONE ANOTHER AND ALSO REEKS WITH INCREDIBILITY.

III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY AND SENTENCING HER TO DEATH
DESPITE THE MANIFESTLY IRRECONCILABLE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE VERSIONS OF THE POLICE AS
TO HOW AND BY WHOM THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST MONEY WAS RECOVERED FROM HER, WHICH IN
CONSEQUENCE RESULTS IN THE EVIDENCE, OF RETRIEVAL FROM HER OF THE SAME, NEBULOUS, AT
BEST, NIL, AT WORST.

IV

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH LEADING
TO THE SEIZURE OF THE MARIJUANA ALLEGEDLY FOUND INSIDE THE HOUSE OF ACCUSED-
APPELLANT."[15]

The assigned errors involve two principal issues: (1) the validity of the buy-bust operation in the
apprehension of accused-appellant Doria; and (2) the validity of the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant
Gaddao, the search of her person and house, and the admissibility of the pieces of evidence obtained therefrom.
 Accused-appellants were caught by the police in a buy-bust operation. A buy-bust operation is a form of
entrapment employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the
commission of an offense.[16] Entrapment has received judicial sanction when undertaken with due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards.[17]
Entrapment was unknown in common law. It is a judicially created twentieth-century American doctrine that
evolved from the increasing use of informers and undercover agents in the detection of crimes, particularly liquor
and narcotics offenses.[18] Entrapment sprouted from the doctrine of estoppel and the public interest in the
formulation and application of decent standards in the enforcement of criminal law.[19] It also took off from a
spontaneous moral revulsion against using the powers of government to beguile innocent but ductile persons
into lapses that they might otherwise resist.[20]
In the American jurisdiction, the term "entrapment" has a generally negative meaning because it is
understood as the inducement of one to commit a crime not contemplated by him, for the mere purpose of
instituting a criminal prosecution against him.[21] The classic definition of entrapment is that articulated by Justice
Roberts in Sorrells v. United States,[22] the first Supreme Court decision to acknowledge the concept: "Entrapment
is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who
would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer."[23] It consists of two (2)
elements: (a) acts of persuasion, trickery, or fraud carried out by law enforcement officers or the agents to induce
a defendant to commit a crime; and (b) the origin of the criminal design in the minds of the government officials
rather than that of the innocent defendant, such that the crime is the product of the creative activity of the law
enforcement officer.[24]
It is recognized that in every arrest, there is a certain amount of entrapment used to outwit the
persons violating or about to violate the law. Not every deception is forbidden. The type of entrapment the law
forbids is the inducing of another to violate the law, the "seduction" of an otherwise innocent person into a
criminal career.[25] Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the entrapping person and the accused is
lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him, there is entrapment and no
conviction may be had.[26] Where, however, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused and the
criminal offense is completed, the fact that a person acting as a decoy for the state, or public officials furnished
the accused an opportunity for commission of the offense, or that the accused is aided in the commission of the
crime in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute him, there is no entrapment and the accused must
be convicted.[27] The law tolerates the use of decoys and other artifices to catch a criminal.
Entrapment is recognized as a valid defense[28] that can be raised by an accused and partakes of the nature
of a confession and avoidance.[29] It is a positive defense. Initially, an accused has the burden of providing sufficient
evidence that the government induced him to commit the offense. Once established, the burden shifts to the
government to show otherwise.[30] When entrapment is raised as a defense, American federal courts and a
majority of state courts use the "subjective" or "origin of intent" test laid down in Sorrells v. United States[31] to
determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The focus of the inquiry is on the accused's predisposition to
commit the offense charged, his state of mind and inclination before his initial exposure to government
agents.[32] All relevant facts such as the accused's mental and character traits, his past offenses, activities, his
eagerness in committing the crime, his reputation, etc., are considered to assess his state of mind before the
crime.[33] The predisposition test emphasizes the accused's propensity to commit the offense rather than the
officer's misconduct[34] and reflects an attempt to draw a line between a "trap for the unwary innocent and the
trap for the unwary criminal."[35] If the accused was found to have been ready and willing to commit the offense
at any favorable opportunity, the entrapment defense will fail even if a police agent used an unduly persuasive
inducement.[36] Some states, however, have adopted the "objective" test.[37] This test was first authoritatively laid
down in the case of Grossman v. State[38] rendered by the Supreme Court of Alaska. Several other states have
subsequently adopted the test by judicial pronouncement or legislation. Here, the court considers the nature of
the police activity involved and the propriety of police conduct.[39] The inquiry is focused on the inducements used
by government agents, on police conduct, not on the accused and his predisposition to commit the crime. For
the goal of the defense is to deter unlawful police conduct.[40]The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of
the law enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and
willing, to commit the offense;[41] for purposes of this test, it is presumed that a law-abiding person would normally
resist the temptation to commit a crime that is presented by the simple opportunity to act unlawfully.[42] Official
conduct that merely offers such an opportunity is permissible, but overbearing conduct, such as badgering,
cajoling or importuning,[43] or appeals to sentiments such as pity, sympathy, friendship or pleas of desperate
illness, are not.[44] Proponents of this test believe that courts must refuse to convict an entrapped accused not
because his conduct falls outside the legal norm but rather because, even if his guilt has been established, the
methods employed on behalf of the government to bring about the crime "cannot be countenanced." To some
extent, this reflects the notion that the courts should not become tainted by condoning law enforcement
improprieties.[45] Hence, the transactions leading up to the offense, the interaction between the accused and law
enforcement officer and the accused's response to the officer's inducements, the gravity of the crime, and the
difficulty of detecting instances of its commission are considered in judging what the effect of the officer's
conduct would be on a normal person.[46]
Both the "subjective" and "objective" approaches have been criticized and objected to. It is claimed that the
"subjective" test creates an "anything goes" rule, i.e., if the court determines that an accused was predisposed to
commit the crime charged, no level of police deceit, badgering or other unsavory practices will be deemed
impermissible.[47] Delving into the accused's character and predisposition obscures the more important task of
judging police behavior and prejudices the accused more generally. It ignores the possibility that no matter what
his past crimes and general disposition were, the accused might not have committed the particular crime unless
confronted with inordinate inducements.[48] On the other extreme, the purely "objective" test eliminates entirely
the need for considering a particular accused's predisposition. His predisposition, at least if known by the police,
may have an important bearing upon the question of whether the conduct of the police and their agents was
proper.[49] The undisputed fact that the accused was a dangerous and chronic offender or that he was a shrewd
and active member of a criminal syndicate at the time of his arrest is relegated to irrelevancy.[50]
Objections to the two tests gave birth to hybrid approaches to entrapment. Some states in the United States
now combine both the "subjective" and "objective" tests.[51] In Cruz v. State,[52] the Florida Supreme Court declared
that the permissibility of police conduct must first be determined. If this objective test is satisfied, then the
analysis turns to whether the accused was predisposed to commit the crime.[53] In Baca v. State,[54] the New
Mexico Supreme Court modified the state's entrapment analysis by holding that "a criminal defendant may
successfully assert a defense of entrapment, either by showing lack of predisposition to commit the crime for
which he is charged, or, that the police exceeded the standards of proper investigation.[55] The hybrid approaches
combine and apply the "objective" and "subjective" tests alternatively or concurrently.
As early as 1910, this Court has examined the conduct of law enforcers while apprehending the accused
caught in flagrante delicto. In United States v. Phelps,[56] we acquitted the accused from the offense of smoking
opium after finding that the government employee, a BIR personnel, actually induced him to commit the crime
in order to prosecute him. Smith, the BIR agent, testified that Phelps' apprehension came after he overheard
Phelps in a saloon say that he liked smoking opium on some occasions. Smith's testimony was disregarded. We
accorded significance to the fact that it was Smith who went to the accused three times to convince him to look
for an opium den where both of them could smoke this drug.[57] The conduct of the BIR agent was condemned as
"most reprehensible."[58] In People v. Abella,[59] we acquitted the accused of the crime of selling explosives after
examining the testimony of the apprehending police officer who pretended to be a merchant. The police officer
offered "a tempting price, xxx a very high one" causing the accused to sell the explosives. We found that there
was inducement, "direct, persistent and effective" by the police officer and that outside of his testimony, there
was no evidence sufficient to convict the accused.[60] In People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng,[61] we convicted the
accused after finding that there was no inducement on the part of the law enforcement officer. We stated that
the Customs secret serviceman smoothed the way for the introduction of opium from Hongkong to Cebu after
the accused had already planned its importation and ordered said drug. We ruled that the apprehending officer
did not induce the accused to import opium but merely entrapped him by pretending to have an understanding
with the Collector of Customs of Cebu to better assure the seizure of the prohibited drug and the arrest of the
surreptitious importers.[62]
It was also in the same case of People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng[63] we first laid down the distinction between
entrapment vis-a-vis instigation or inducement. Quoting 16 Corpus Juris,[64] we held:

"ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION. -- While it has been said that the practice of entrapping persons
into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions is to be deplored, and while
instigation, as distinguished from mere entrapment, has often been condemned and has
sometimes been held to prevent the act from being criminal or punishable, the general rule is that
it is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely
placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the 'decoy solicitation' of persons seeking to
expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently
assisting in its commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the offense is one of a
kind habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct.
Mere deception by the detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was committed by him,
free from the influence or instigation of the detective. The fact that an agent of an owner acts as a
supposed confederate of a thief is no defense to the latter in a prosecution for larceny, provided
the original design was formed independently of such agent; and where a person approached by
the thief as his confederate notifies the owner or the public authorities, and, being authorised by
them to do so, assists the thief in carrying out the plan, the larceny is nevertheless committed. It is
generally held that it is no defense to a prosecution for an illegal sale of liquor that the purchase
was made by a 'spotter,' detective, or hired informer; but there are cases holding the contrary."[65]

The distinction above-quoted was reiterated in two (2) decisions of the Court of Appeals. In People v.
Galicia,[66] the appellate court declared that "there is a wide difference between entrapment and instigation." The
instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a
co-principal. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to by the peace officer for the purpose of trapping and
capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan.[67] In People v. Tan Tiong,[68] the Court of Appeals
further declared that "entrapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker."[69]
The pronouncement of the Court of Appeals in People v. Galicia was affirmed by this Court in People v. Tiu
Ua. Entrapment, we further held, is not contrary to public policy. It is instigation that is deemed contrary to
[70]

public policy and illegal.[71]

It can thus be seen that the concept of entrapment in the American jurisdiction is similar to instigation or
inducement in Philippine jurisprudence. Entrapment in the Philippines is not a defense available to the accused. It
is instigation that is a defense and is considered an absolutory cause.[72] To determine whether there is
entrapment or instigation, our courts have mainly examined the conduct of the apprehending officers, not the
predisposition of the accused to commit the crime. The "objective" test first applied in United States v. Phelps has
been followed in a series of similar cases.[73] Nevertheless, adopting the "objective" approach has not precluded
us from likewise applying the "subjective" test. In People v. Boholst,[74] we applied both tests by examining the
conduct of the police officers in a buy-bust operation and admitting evidence of the accused's membership with
the notorious and dreaded Sigue-Sigue Sputnik Gang. We also considered accused's previous convictions of other
crimes[75] and held that his opprobrious past and membership with the dreaded gang strengthened the state's
evidence against him. Conversely, the evidence that the accused did not sell or smoke marijuana and did not have
any criminal record was likewise admitted in People v. Yutuc[76] thereby sustaining his defense that led to his
acquittal.
The distinction between entrapment and instigation has proven to be very material in anti-narcotics
operations. In recent years, it has become common practice for law enforcement officers and agents to engage
in buy-bust operations and other entrapment procedures in apprehending drug offenders. Anti-narcotics laws,
like anti-gambling laws are regulatory statutes.[77] They are rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly
regulation of the affairs of society, and their violation gives rise to crimes mala prohibita.[78] They are not the
traditional type of criminal law such as the law of murder, rape, theft, arson, etc. that deal with crimes mala in
se or those inherently wrongful and immoral.[79] Laws defining crimes mala prohibita condemn behavior directed,
not against particular individuals, but against public order.[80] Violation is deemed a wrong against society as a
whole and is generally unattended with any particular harm to a definite person.[81] These offenses are carried on
in secret and the violators resort to many devices and subterfuges to avoid detection. It is rare for any member
of the public, no matter how furiously he condemns acts mala prohibita, to be willing to assist in the enforcement
of the law. It is necessary, therefore, that government in detecting and punishing violations of these laws, rely,
not upon the voluntary action of aggrieved individuals, but upon the diligence of its own officials. This means that
the police must be present at the time the offenses are committed either in an undercover capacity or through
informants, spies or stool pigeons.[82]
Though considered essential by the police in enforcing vice legislation, the confidential informant system
breeds abominable abuse. Frequently, a person who accepts payment from the police in the apprehension of
drug peddlers and gamblers also accept payment from these persons who deceive the police. The informant
himself may be a drug addict, pickpocket, pimp, or other petty criminal. For whatever noble purpose it serves,
the spectacle that government is secretly mated with the underworld and uses underworld characters to help
maintain law and order is not an inspiring one.[83] Equally odious is the bitter reality of dealing with unscrupulous,
corrupt and exploitative law enforcers. Like the informant, unscrupulous law enforcers' motivations are legion--
harassment, extortion, vengeance, blackmail, or a desire to report an accomplishment to their superiors. This
Court has taken judicial notice of this ugly reality in a number of cases[84] where we observed that it is a
common modus operandi of corrupt law enforcers to prey on weak and hapless persons, particularly
unsuspecting provincial hicks.[85] The use of shady underworld characters as informants, the relative ease with
which illegal drugs may be planted in the hands or property of trusting and ignorant persons, and the imposed
secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals have compelled this Court to be extra-vigilant in deciding drug
cases.[86]Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy, although necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police
officer, become as objectionable police methods as the coerced confession and the unlawful search.As well put
by the Supreme Court of California in People v. Barraza,[87]

"[E]ntrapment is a facet of a broader problem. Along with illegal search and seizures, wiretapping,
false arrest, illegal detention and the third degree, it is a type of lawless enforcement. They all
spring from common motivations. Each is a substitute for skillful and scientific investigation. Each is
condoned by the sinister sophism that the end, when dealing with known criminals of the 'criminal
classes,' justifies the employment of illegal means."[88]

It is thus imperative that the presumption, juris tantum, of regularity in the performance of official duty by law
enforcement agents raised by the Solicitor General be applied with studied restraint. This presumption should
not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence and the constitutionally-protected rights of the
individual.[89] It is the duty of courts to preserve the purity of their own temple from the prostitution of the criminal
law through lawless enforcement.[90] Courts should not allow themselves to be used as an instrument of abuse
and injustice lest an innocent person be made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.[91]
We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the
purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between
the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the
consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.[92] The manner by which the initial
contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the
"buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must
be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit
an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of
the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is
overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be
considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense
in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.
In the case at bar, the evidence shows that it was the confidential informant who initially contacted accused-
appellant Doria. At the pre-arranged meeting, the informant was accompanied by PO3 Manlangit who posed as
the buyer of marijuana. PO3 Manlangit handed the marked money to accused-appellant Doria as advance
payment for one (1) kilo of marijuana. Accused-appellant Doria was apprehended when he later returned and
handed the brick of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit.
PO3 Manlangit testified in a frank, spontaneous, straighforward and categorical manner and his credibility
was not crumpled on cross-examination by defense counsel. Moreover, PO3 Manlangit's testimony was
corroborated on its material points by SPO1 Badua, his back-up security. The non-presentation of the confidential
informant is not fatal to the prosecution. Informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to
hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police.[93] It is well-settled that except when the
appellant vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of
the arresting officers,[94] or there are reasons to believe that the arresting officers had motives to testify falsely
against the appellant,[95] or that only the informant was the poseur-buyer who actually witnessed the entire
transaction,[96] the testimony of the informant may be dispensed with as it will merely be corroborative of the
apprehending officers' eyewitness testimonies.[97] There is no need to present the informant in court where the
sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by prosecution witnesses.[98]
The inconsistencies in PO3 Manlangit's and SPO1 Badua's testimonies and the other police officers'
testimonies are minor and do not detract from the veracity and weight of the prosecution evidence. The source
of the money for the buy-bust operation is not a critical fact in the case at bar. It is enough that the prosecution
proved that money was paid to accused-appellant Doria in consideration of which he sold and delivered the
marijuana.
Contrary to accused-appellant Doria's claim, the one kilo of marijuana "sold" by him to PO3 Manlangit was
actually identified by PO3 Manlangit himself before the trial court. After appellants' apprehension, the Narcom
agents placed this one (1) brick of marijuana recovered from appellant Doria inside the carton box lumping it
together with the ten (10) bricks inside. This is why the carton box contained eleven (11) bricks of marijuana when
brought before the trial court. The one (1) brick recovered from appellant Doria and each of the ten (10) bricks,
however, were identified and marked in court. Thus:
"ATTY. ARIAS, Counsel for Florencio Doria:
Mr. Police Officer, when you identified that box,. Tell the court, how were you able to identify that box?
A This is the box that I brought to the crime laboratory which contained the eleven pieces of marijuana brick we confiscated
from the suspect, sir.
 Q Please open it and show those eleven bricks.
PROSECUTOR Witness bringing out from the said box...
ATTY. VALDEZ, Counsel for Violeta Gaddao:
Your Honor, I must protest the line of questioning considering the fact that we are now dealing with eleven items
when the question posed to the witness was what was handed to him by Jun?
COURT So be it.
ATTY. ARIAS May we make it of record that the witness is pulling out item after item from the box showed to him and
brought in front of him.
COURT Noted.
Q Now tell the court, how did you know that those are the eleven bricks?
x x x.
A I have markings on these eleven bricks, sir.
Q Point to the court, where are those markings?
A Here, sir, my signature, my initials with the date, sir.
PROSECUTOR Witness showed a white wrapper and pointing to CLM and the signature.
Q Whose signature is that?
ATTY VALDEZ Your Honor, may we just limit the inquiry to the basic question of the fiscal as to what was handed to him
by the accused Jun, your Honor?
PROSECUTOR Your Honor, there is already a ruling by this Honorable Court, your Honor, despite reconsideration.
COURT Let the prosecution do its own thing and leave the appreciation of what it has done to the court.
ATTY. VALDEZ We submit, your Honor.
A This brick is the one that was handed to me by the suspect Jun, sir.
COURT Why do you know that that is the thing? Are you sure that is not "tikoy?"
A Yes, your Honor.
Q What makes you so sure?
A I am sure that this is the one, your Honor. This is the Exhibit "A" which I marked before I brought it to the PCCL, your
Honor.
Q What are you sure of?
A I am sure that this is the brick that was given to me by one alias Jun, sir.
Q What makes you so sure?
A Because I marked it with my own initials before giving it to the investigator and before we brought it to the PCCL, your
Honor.
x x x.
PROSECUTOR May we request that a tag be placed on this white plastic bag and this be marked as Exhibit "D?"
COURT Mark it as Exhibit "D."
Q To stress, who made the entries of this date, Exhibit "A" then the other letters and figures on this plastic?
 A This one, the signature, I made the signature, the date and the time and this Exhibit "A."
Q How about this one?
A I don't know who made this marking, sir.
PROSECUTOR May it be of record that this was just entered this morning.
Q I am asking you about this "itim" and not the "asul."
A This CLM, the date and the time and the Exhibit "A," I was the one who made these markings, sir.
PROSECUTOR May we place on record that the one that was enclosed...
ATTY. ARIAS Your Honor, there are also entries included in that enclosure where it appears D-394-95, also Exhibit "A,"
etc. etc., that was not pointed to by the witness. I want to make it of record that there are other entries included
in the enclosure.
COURT Noted. The court saw it.
Q Now, and this alleged brick of marijuana with a piece of paper, with a newspaper wrapping with a piece of paper inside
which reads: "D-394-95, Exhibit A, 970 grams SSL" be marked as our Exhibit "D-2?"
COURT Tag it. Mark it.
Q This particular exhibit that you identified, the wrapper and the contents was given to you by whom?
A It was given to me by suspect Jun, sir.
Q Whereat?
A At the corner of Boulevard and Jacinto St., sir.
Q How about the other items that you were able to recover?
x x x.
A These other marijuana bricks, because during our follow-up, because according to Jun the money which I gave him was
in the hands of Neneth and so we proceeded to the house of Neneth, sir.
x x x."[99]
The first brick identified by P03 Manlangit was the brick of marijuana "given to [him] by suspect Jun" at the corner
of Boulevard and Jacinto Streets. This brick, including the newspaper and white plastic wrapping were marked as
Exhibits "D," "D-1," and "D-2" and described as weighing nine hundred seventy (970) grams.[100]
We also reject appellant's submission that the fact that PO3 Manlangit and his team waited for almost one
hour for appellant Doria to give them the one kilo of marijuana after he "paid" P1,600.00 strains
credulity. Appellant cannot capitalize on the circumstance that the money and the marijuana in the case at bar
did not change hands under the usual "kaliwaan" system. There is no rule of law which requires that in "buy-bust"
operations there must be a simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between the
poseur-buyer and the pusher.[101] Again, the decisive fact is that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from
the accused-appellant.[102]
We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are
allowed in three instances as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:

"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. -- A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
 (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
x x x."[103]
Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." Appellant Doria was caught in the act of committing
an offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police
are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.[104]
The warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao, the search of her person and residence, and the seizure of the
box of marijuana and marked bills are different matters.
Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure without a judicial warrant and any evidence obtained without
such warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.[105] The rule is, however, not absolute. Search and
seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following
instances:[106] (1) search incident to a lawful arrest;[107] (2) search of a moving motor vehicle;[108] (3) search in
violation of customs laws;[109] (4) seizure of evidence in plain view;[110] (5) when the accused himself waives his right
against unreasonable searches and seizures.[111]
The prosecution admits that appellant Gaddao was arrested without a warrant of arrest and the search and
seizure of the box of marijuana and the marked bills were likewise made without a search warrant. It is claimed,
however, that the warrants were not necessary because the arrest was made in "hot pursuit" and the search was
an incident to her lawful arrest.
To be lawful, the warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao must fall under any of the three (3) instances
enumerated in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as aforequoted. The direct
testimony of PO3 Manlangit, the arresting officer, however shows otherwise:
"ATTY VALDEZ, Counsel for appellant Gaddao:
We submit at this juncture, your Honor, that there will be no basis for that question.
Q This particular exhibit that you identified, the wrapper and the contents was given to you by whom?
A It was given to me by suspect Jun, sir.
Q Whereat?
A At the corner of Boulevard and Jacinto Street, sir.
Q How about the other items that you were able to recover?
ATTY. VALDEZ: We submit at this juncture, your Honor, that there will be no basis for that question.
COURT There is. Answer.
A These other marijuana bricks, because during our follow-up, because according to Jun the money which I gave him was
in the hands of Neneth and so we proceeded to the house of Neneth, sir.
Q Whereat?
A At Daang Bakal near the crime scene at Shaw Boulevard, sir.
 Q And what happened upon arrival thereat?
A We saw alias Neneth inside the house and we asked him to give us the buy-bust money, sir.
Q You mentioned "him?"
A Her, sir. We asked her to give us the money, the marked money which Jun gave her, sir.
Q And what happened?
A At this instance, it was SPO1 Badua who can testify regarding this buy-bust money, sir.
x x x."[112]
SPO1 Badua testified on cross-examination that:
Q What was your intention in going to the house of Aling Neneth?
A To arrest her, sir.
Q But the fact is, Mr. Witness, when you reached the house of Aling Neneth, Aling Neneth was there?
A Yes, sir.
Q As far as you can see, she was just inside her house?
A I saw her outside, sir.
Q She was fetching water as a matter of fact?
A She was `sa bandang poso.'
Q Carrying a baby?
A No, sir.
Q At that particular time when you reached the house of Aling Neneth and saw her outside the house, she was not
committing any crime, she was just outside the house?
A No, sir.
Q She was not about to commit any crime because she was just outside the house doing her daily chores. Am I correct?
A I just saw her outside, sir.
Q And at that point in time you already wanted to arrest her. That is correct, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, if any memory of your testimony is correct, according to you SPO1 Manlangit approached her?
A PO3 Manlangit, sir.
Q You did not approach her because PO3 Manlangit approached her?
A Yes, sir.
Q During all the time that this confrontation, arrest or whatever by SPO3 Manlangit was taking place, you were just in
the side lines?
A I was just watching, sir.
Q So you were just an on-looker to what Manlangit was doing, because precisely according to you your role in this buy-
bust operation was as a back-up?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who got the alleged marijuana from inside the house of Mrs. Neneth?
 A PO3 Manlangit, sir.
Q Manlangit got the marijuana?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the money from Aling Neneth?
A I don't know, sir.
Q You did not even know who got the money from Aling Neneth?
PROSECUTOR:
There is no basis for this question, your Honor. Money, there's no testimony on that.
ATTY. VALDEZ:
I was asking him precisely.
PROSECUTOR:
No basis.
COURT:
Sustained.
Q Alright. I will ask you a question and I expect an honest answer. According to the records, the amount of P1,600.00
was recovered from the person of Aling Neneth. That's right?
A Yes, sir, the buy-bust money.
Q What you are now saying for certain and for the record is the fact that you were not the one who retrieved the money
from Aling Neneth, it was Manlangit maybe?
A I saw it, sir.
Q It was Manlangit who got the money from Aling Neneth?
A The buy-bust money was recovered from the house of Aling Neneth, sir.
Q It was taken from the house of Aling Neneth, not from the person of Aling Neneth. Is that what you are trying to tell
the Court?
A No, sir.
ATTY. VALDEZ: I am through with this witness, your Honor."[113]
Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her
arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the trial
court, there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot
pursuit."[114] In fact, she was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her.
Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified under the second instance of Rule 113. "Personal
knowledge" of facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based upon "probable
cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion."[115] The grounds of suspicion are
reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be
arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.[116] A
reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the
peace officers making the arrest.[117]
 Accused-appellant Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by her co-
accused. PO3 Manlangit, however, declared in his direct examination that appellant Doria named his co-accused
in response to his (PO3 Manlangit's) query as to where the marked money was.[118] Appellant Doria did not point
to appellant Gaddao as his associate in the drug business, but as the person with whom he left the marked
bills. This identification does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that appellant Gaddao conspired with her co-
accused in pushing drugs. Appellant Doria may have left the money in her house,[119] with or without her
knowledge, with or without any conspiracy. Save for accused-appellant Doria's word, the Narcom agents had no
reasonable grounds to believe that she was engaged in drug pushing. If there is no showing that the person who
effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the
perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable.[120]
Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao was illegal, it follows that the search of her person
and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident
to her arrest. This brings us to the question of whether the trial court correctly found that the box of marijuana
was in plain view, making its warrantless seizure valid.
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject
to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence.[121] The "plain view" doctrine applies
when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the
evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may
be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.[122] The law enforcement officer must lawfully
make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area.[123] In the course
of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused.[124] The
object must be open to eye and hand[125] and its discovery inadvertent.[126]
It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty arises when
the object is inside a closed container. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is
not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its
contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer,
then the contents are in plain view and may be seized.[127] In other words, if the package is such that an
experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is
deemed in plain view.[128] It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be
evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.[129]
PO3 Manlangit, the Narcom agent who found the box, testified on cross-examination as follows:
"ATTY. VALDEZ:
So here we are. When you and Badua arrived, Aling Neneth was inside the house?
A Yes, sir.
Q Badua demanded from Aling Neneth the buy-bust money?
A Yes, sir.
Q At that particular instance, you saw the carton?
A Yes, sir.
Q This carton, according to you was under a table?
A Yes, sir, dining table.
Q I noticed that this carton has a cover?
A Yes, sir.
Q I ask you were the flaps of the cover raised or closed?
A It was open, sir. Not like that.
COURT
Go down there. Show to the court.
INTERPRETER
Witness went down the witness stand and approached a carton box.
A Like this, sir.
PROSECUTOR
Can we describe it?
ATTY. VALDEZ
Yes.
PROSECUTOR
One flap is inside and the other flap is standing and with the contents visible.
COURT
Noted.
Q At this juncture, you went inside the house?
A Yes, sir.
Q And got hold of this carton?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you mention anything to Aling Neneth?
A I asked her, what's this...
Q No, no. no. did you mention anything to Aling Neneth before getting the carton?
A I think it was Badua who accosted Aling Neneth regarding the buy-bust money and he asked "Sa iyo galing ang
marijuanang ito, nasaan ang buy-bust money namin?" sir.
Q Making reference to the marijuana that was given by alias Jun?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you proceeded to take hold of this carton, Aling Neneth was not yet frisked, is it not [sic]?
A I just don't know if she was frisked already by Badua, sir.
Q Who got hold of this?
A I was the one, sir.
Q You were the one who got this?
A Yes, sir.
Q At that particular point in time, you did not know if the alleged buy-bust money was already retrieved by Badua?
A Yes, sir.
Q You went inside the house?
A Yes, sir.
Q You did not have any search warrant?
A Yes, sir.
Q In fact, there was nothing yet as far as you were concerned to validate the fact that Mrs. Gadao was in possession of
the buy-bust money because according to you, you did not know whether Badua already retrieved the buy-bust
money from her?
A Yes, sir.
Q How far was this from the door?
A Two and a half meters from the door, sir. It was in plain view.
Q Under the table according to you?
A Yes, sir, dining table.
Q Somewhere here?
A It's far, sir.
PROSECUTOR
May we request the witness to place it, where he saw it?
A Here, sir.
Q What you see is a carton?
A Yes, sir, with plastic.
Q Marked "Snow Time Ice Pop?"
A Yes, sir.
Q With a piece of plastic visible on top of the carton?
A Yes, sir.
Q That is all that you saw?
A Yes, sir.
PROSECUTOR
For the record, your Honor...
Q You were only able to verify according to you...
PROSECUTOR
Panero, wait. Because I am objecting to the words a piece of plastic. By reading it...
ATTY. VALDEZ
That's a piece of plastic.
PROSECUTOR
By reading it, it will connote... this is not a piece of plastic.
ATTY. VALDEZ
 What is that? What can you say, Fiscal? I'm asking you?
PROSECUTOR
With due respect, what I am saying is, let's place the size of the plastic. A piece of plastic may be big or a small one,
for record purposes.
COURT
Leave that to the court.
PROSECUTOR
Leave that to the court.
Q The only reason according to you, you were able to... Look at this, no even Superman... I withdraw that. Not even a man
with very kin [sic] eyes can tell the contents here. And according to the Court, it could be "tikoy," is it not [sic]?
A Yes, sir.
Q Siopao?
A Yes, sir.
Q Canned goods?
A Yes, sir.
Q It could be ice cream because it says Snow Pop, Ice Pop?
A I presumed it was also marijuana because it may ...
Q I am not asking you what your presumptions are. I'm asking you what it could possibly be.
A It's the same plastic, sir.
ATTY. VALDEZ
I'm not even asking you that question so why are you voluntarily saying the information. Let the prosecutor do that
for you.
COURT
Continue. Next question.
x x x."[130]
PO3 Manlangit and the police team were at appellant Gaddao's house because they were led there by appellant
Doria. The Narcom agents testified that they had no information on appellant Gaddao until appellant Doria
named her and led them to her.[131] Standing by the door of appellant Gaddao's house, PO3 Manlangit had a view
of the interior of said house. Two and a half meters away was the dining table and underneath it was a carton
box. The box was partially open and revealed something wrapped in plastic.
In his direct examination, PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure that the contents of the box were marijuana
because he himself checked and marked the said contents.[132] On cross-examination, however, he admitted that
he merely presumed the contents to be marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as the "buy-bust
marijuana." A close scrutiny of the records reveals that the plastic wrapper was not colorless and transparent as
to clearly manifest its contents to a viewer. Each of the ten (10) bricks of marijuana in the box was individually
wrapped in old newspaper and placed inside plastic bags-- white, pink or blue in color.[133] PO3 Manlangit himself
admitted on cross-examination that the contents of the box could be items other than marijuana. He did not know
exactly what the box contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its contents.[134] It was not immediately
apparent to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box was marijuana. The marijuana was not in plain view and its
seizure without the requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution.[135] It was fruit of the
poisonous tree and should have been excluded and never considered by the trial court.[136]
The fact that the box containing about six (6) kilos of marijuana[137] was found in the house of accused-
appellant Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.[138]Apropos is our ruling
in People v. Aminnudin,[139] viz:

"The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and
commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this
malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign
may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of the
liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution covers
with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-
handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions.

Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the right of the
individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. As Justice Holmes,
again, said, 'I think it a less evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should
play an ignoble part.' It is simply not allowed in the free society to violate a law to enforce another,
especially if the law violated is the Constitution itself."[140]

Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Section 13 of Republic
Act No. 7659 punishes the "sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of a prohibited drug"
with the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million, to wit:

"Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs.-- The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten
million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited
drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

x x x."
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the submission of proof that the sale
took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller thereof and the presentation of the drug, i.e., the corpus
delicti, as evidence in court.[141] The prosecution has clearly established the fact that in consideration of P1,600.00
which he received, accused-appellant Doria sold and delivered nine hundred seventy (970) grams of marijuana
to PO3 Manlangit, the poseur-buyer. The prosecution, however, has failed to prove that accused-appellant
Gaddao conspired with accused-appellant Doria in the sale of said drug. There being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances, the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua must be imposed.[142]
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 156, Pasig City acting as a Special Court
in Criminal Case No. 3307-D is reversed and modified as follows:
1. Accused-appellant Florencio Doria y Bolado is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay
a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
2. Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao y Catama is acquitted.
SO ORDERED.
 SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 121572. March 31, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEL ELAMPARO Y FONTANILLA, accused-

appellant. E-xsm

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

On May 31, 1995, the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, convicted appellant of the crime of
[1]

illegal possession of drugs, imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him
to pay a fine of P9,000,000.00.

As summarized by the solicitor General, the facts of this case which we find to be supported by the
records are as follows:
[2]

"On February 12, 1995, at about 5:00 in the morning, prosecution witness Police
Officer Romeo Baldonado, while attending to his duties as supervising policeman of
the Kalookan Police Station, received a report from an informant that some people
are selling shabu and marijuana somewhere at Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City (TSN,
April 11, 1995, p. 3; TSN, April 4, 1995, p. 3). Said informant stated that he himself
succeeded in buying said drugs (ibid., p. 3).

Hence, Police Officer Baldonado formed a buy-bust operation team with himself as
team leader and Police Officers Ernesto Andala, Ronielo Reantillo and Bismark Gaviola
as members (TSN, April 4, 1995, p. 4). Said team proceeded to the area reported to at
Progreso P. Gomez, Bagong Barrio, Kalookan City at around 5:45 in the morning of the
same day (ibid., p. 3). Ky-le

Upon arrival at the area, prosecution witness Gaviola, together with the informant
asset stood at the corner of P. Gomez Street, Bagong barrio, Kalookan City, since the
said spot was identified to be the market or where the buyers of marijuana await a
runner (seller). Thereafter, a runner later identified to be Erwin Spencer approached
the poseur-buyer, Gaviola, who was asked Iiscore ba kayo (TSN, April 5, 1995, p. 22).
Having answered, Iiscore kami, Spencer then left and returned after five minutes with
the marijuana (ibid., p. 22). Gaviola then handed over the marked money and arrested
Spencer, but who freed himself and ran (TSN, April 4, 1995, p. 7).

Then, the buy-bust team pursued Spencer, who ran inside a bungalow-type house
with steel gate (ibid., p. 8). Having trapped Spencer inside the house, the police
officers frisked him and recovered the marked money (ibid., p. 9). The police officers
 likewise found appellant repacking five (5) bricks of marijuana wrapped in a
newspaper on top of the round table inside the houses sala (TSN, April 11, 1995, p. 7).
Appellant was then arrested and he confessed that the source of the marijuana was
Benguet (TSN, April 4, 1995, p. 10).

Spencer and appellant were later taken to the precinct where they were delivered to
the inquest fiscal for further investigation (TSN, April 11, 1995, p. 8). The arresting
officers then executed an affidavit on the incident and made a request for the
National Bureau of Investigation to conduct examination of the drugs seized (TSN,
May 3, 1995, p. 2). The NBI Report confirmed the drugs seized to be marijuana
weighing five (5) kilos (ibid., p. 3)."

On February 15, 1995, the City Prosecutor charged appellant with the crime of illegal possession of
drugs under the following Information: [3]

"That on or about the 12th day of February 1995 in Kalookan City, M.M. and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been
authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, custody and control 5.208 kgs. of Marijuana, knowing the same to be a
prohibited drugs (sic).

CONTRARY TO LAW." Ky-calr

On March 1, 1995, appellant, duly assisted by counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty. [4]

During trial, the prosecution presented as its witnesses (1) PO2 Bismark Gaviola, the poseur-buyer,
(2) SPO2 Romeo Baldonado, one of the police officers who took part in the buy-bust operation, and
(3) Juliet Gelacio Mahilum, a forensic chemist at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
Mahilum testified that she conducted three types of examination on the five (5) bricks of marijuana
flowering tops (chemical examination, microscopic examination, and chromatographic
examination) and that each of the five (5) bricks gave positive results for marijuana.
[5]

For the defense, appellant and Angelo Bernales, a boarder at appellants house, testified. Their
version of the incident is as follows:
[6]

"JOEL ELAMPARO y FONTANILLA, the accused herein, gave a very different version of
the incident. At around 6:00 to 7:30 in the morning of February 12, 1995, he was at
their house when somebody knocked at their door. His father opened the same and
was informed that somebody was looking for him. He went out and saw Erwin
Spencer with handcuffs and being held by an arresting officer. He likewise sighted
PO3 Bismark Gaviola holding a big box. When he persistently questioned Erwin
Spencer as to why he was arrested, the arresting officers got mad at him prompting
them to likewise bring him to the police station where he was detained. The arresting
officers demanded the amount of P15,000.00 for his release. He remained in jail as he
 refused to accede to their demand. On the other hand, Erwin Spencer was released
two (2) days after they were jailed for the latter gave money to the police officers.
(TSN, pp. 1-8, May 9, 1995). Calr-ky

ANGELO BERNALE (sic), a student, testified that he is renting a small room at the
accused (sic) house located at No. 2 P. Gomez St., Bagong Barrio, Kalookan City. On
February 12, 1995, at about 6:00 to 7:00 oclock in the morning he was about to go
out of the accused (sic) house to bring breakfast to his father when he sighted Erwin
Spencer in handcuffs, in the company of three policemen one of whom was holding a
box. Then he saw the policemen knocked at the door of the accused (sic) house.
Shortly thereafter, the accused was taken away by the policemen."

After trial, the court rendered its decision, disposing as follows:

[7]

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused JOEL ELAMPARO Y

FONTANILLA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 8, Art. II of R.A.
6425, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and a
fine of NINE MILLION (P9,000,000.00) PESOS, pursuant to Section 17 of the Death
Penalty. With Costs.

SO ORDERED."

Hence, the present appeal. Appellant now contends that the trial court erred in - [8]

I. GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND

DISREGARDING THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE.

II. FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF
SECTION 4 [SHOULD BE SEC. 8] OF R.A. 6425.

III. CONTENDING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE

CHARGED, THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY. Jjs-c

In his brief, appellant assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He contends that it is
highly unusual for arresting officers to act on an information of an unknown source without
confirming the veracity of the report, and that it is incredible that a peddler of marijuana would be
so brazen as to approach total strangers and offer to sell them marijuana. Appellant insists that he
was charged with illegal possession of marijuana because he failed to pay the police officers the
amount of P15,000.00 for his release, unlike Spencer, who paid said amount. Appellant assails the
legality of his arrest inside the house of his father for failure of the apprehending officers to secure
a search warrant. Lastly, appellant contends that if found guilty, the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority should be appreciated in his favor.
The Office of the Solicitor General, for the State, contends that further surveillance was
unnecessary because the police "asset" had personal knowledge of the open buying and selling of
"marijuana" in the area, having purchased his "marijuana" a few hours before reporting the matter
to the police. Appellant also misrepresented himself in saying that Spencer was released without
charges considering that a separate investigation was conducted against the latter. The OSG
contends that appellants arrest was an incident to a lawful hot pursuit made against Spencer.
Appellant, in the course of the pursuit was surprised in plain view to be repacking the five (5) bricks
of marijuana. The OSG concedes, however, that the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority
should be appreciated in favor of appellant.

Considering the assigned errors and the foregoing contentions, we find that here the issues
pertain, first, to the assessment of credibility of witnesses; second, the validity of appellants arrest;
and third, the correctness of the penalty imposed by the trial court.

As to the first issue, it is well-settled that the assessment of credibility of witnesses is within the
province of the trial court which had an opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor
during their testimonies. Unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts which would affect the
outcome of the case, we accord the utmost respect to their findings of facts. As compared to the
baseless disclaimers of appellant, the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses
appears worthy of belief, coming as it does from law enforcers who are presumed to have regularly
performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary. Esm[9]

Appellants claims that it is highly suspect that Spencer would offer to sell marijuana to total
strangers. However, in many cases, drug pushers did sell their prohibited articles to prospective
customers, be they strangers or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime.
Indeed, some drug pushers appear to have become exceedingly daring, openly defiant of the law.
Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller, or the time
and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement as well as the act constituting sale and delivery of
prohibited drugs. As found a quo, it was the consummated sale between PO2 Gaviola and
[10]

Spencer which led to the eventual arrest of appellant.

As to the warrantless search, Section 2 Article III of the 1987 Constitution prohibits a search and
seizure without a judicial warrant. Further, Section 3 thereof provides that any evidence obtained
without such warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

However, not being absolute, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is subject to
exceptions. Thus, for example, Section 12 of Rule 126, of the Rules on Criminal procedure, provides
that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for "dangerous weapons or anything which may be
used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant."

Five generally accepted exceptions to the right against warrantless searches and seizures have also
been judicially formulated, viz: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles,
(3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs searches, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their
right against unreasonable search and seizure. marinella
[11]
Considering its factual milieu, this case falls squarely under the plain view doctrine. In People v.
Doria, 301 SCRA 668, 710-711 (1999), we held that

"Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have
that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced
in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for
an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the
discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to
the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an
initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the
area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of
evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its
discovery inadvertent."

When Spencer wrenched himself free from the grasp of PO2 Gaviola, he instinctively ran towards
the house of appellant. The members of the buy-bust team were justified in running after him and
entering the house without a search warrant for they were hot in the heels of a fleeing criminal.
Once inside the house, the police officers cornered Spencer and recovered the buy-bust money
from him. They also caught appellant in flagrante delicto repacking the marijuana bricks which
were in full view on top of a table. PO2 Gaviola testified as to the circumstances of appellants arrest
as follows[12]

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR EULOGIO MANANQUIL, JR.

Q: Now how were you able to enter the house?

PO2 GAVIOLA: nigel

A: Because the door was already open.

Q: When you entered the house, what happened inside the house?

A: We saw Joel Elamparo, sir. He was then repacking five (5) bricks of marijuana
wrapped in a newspaper.

Q: Where was it placed, this five (5) packed (sic) of marijuana?

A: It was placed on top of the table, sir.

Q: Was Joel Elamparo alone when you saw him repacking these five (5) bricks of
marijuana?
 A: He has some companions in the house, his wife, 2 other women, his father and
there was one man there who was a boarder.

Q: Now you said that you saw Joel Elamparo repacking five bricks of marijuana, now
who was his companion in repacking the same?

A: He was alone, sir.

Hence, appellants subsequent arrest was likewise lawful, coming as it is within the purview of
Section 5 (a) of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:

"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

..."

Section 5 (a) is commonly referred to as the rule on in flagrante delicto arrests. Here two
[13]

elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating the he
has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt
act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Thus, when appellant was
[14]

seen repacking the marijuana, the police officers were not only authorized but also duty-bound to
arrest him even without a warrant. ella

Although the caption of the Information charges the appellant with violation of Section 4 of Article
II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, otherwise known as the death
[15]

penalty law, which refers to the sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of
prohibited drugs, the body of the Information charges appellant with the crime of illegal possession
of prohibited drugs under Section 8 of Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. We
have held that it is not the designation of the offense in the Information that is controlling but the
allegations therein which directly apprise the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. Appellant having been fully apprised of the elements of the crime of illegal
[16]

possession of prohibited drugs, he may properly be convicted of the crime of illegal possession of
marijuana.

In drug cases, the quantity of prohibited drugs involved is determinative of the imposable penalty.
Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, provides that when the
quantity of indian hemp or marijuana is 750 grams or more, as in this case, the penalty shall
be reclusion perpetua to death and fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00)
to ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00).

Appellant having been born on January 9, 1978, was only 17 years, 1 month, and 3 days old, at
[17]

the time of the commission of the crime on February 12, 1995. Beginning with our decision in
People v. Simon, and reiterated in a number of decisions thereafter, the Court has recognized the
[18]

suppletory application of the rules on penalties in the Revised Penal Code to the Dangerous Drugs
Act after the amendment of the latter by Republic Act No. 7659. Appellant being a minor over
fifteen and under eighteen at the time of the commission of the crime, he is entitled to a reduced
penalty due to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 13 (2) of the
Revised Penal code. Article 68 (2) of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty next lower
than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. Applying the
provisions of Article 61 (2) of the Revised Penal Code which prescribes the rules for graduating
penalties, the imposable penalty on appellant is the penalty next lower in degree immediately
following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale. The penalty next
lower in degree than reclusion perpetua is reclusion temporal. There being no generic mitigating or
aggravating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its medium
period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum shall be within the range of the
penalty next lower in degree which is prision mayor. No fine is imposable in this case, for it is
imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. alonzo
[19]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 121, in Criminal Case
No. C-48478 (95) finding appellant JOEL ELAMPARO Y FONTANILLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of illegal possession of drugs is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that he is
hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum, and seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum. Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-6025 May 30, 1964

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., accused,
AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

-----------------------------

G.R. No. L-6026 May 30, 1964

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
BAYANI ESPIRITU, ET AL., accused,
BAYANI ESPIRITU and TEOPISTA VALERIO, defendants-appellants.

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

The information filed against defendants Hernandez and others in Criminal Case No. 15481 alleged:

I. That on or about March 15, 1945, and for some time before the said date and continuously thereafter, until the
present time, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and the place which they had chosen as the nerve center of all their
rebellious activities in the different parts of the Philippines, the said accused, conspiring, confederating and
cooperating with each other, as well as with the thirty-one (31) defendants charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 19071,
14082, 14270, 14315 and 14344 of the Court of First Instance of Manila (decided May 11, 1951) and also with others
whose whereabouts and identities are still unknown, the said accused and their other co-conspirators, being then high
ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.), which
is now actively engaged in an armed rebellion against the Government of the Philippines thru act theretofore
committed and planned to be further committed in Manila and other places in the Philippines, and of which party the
"Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan"(H.M.B.) otherwise or formerly known as the "Hukbalahaps" (Huks), unlawfully and
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously help, support, promote, maintain, cause, direct and/or
command the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) or the "Hukbalahaps" (Huks) to rise publicly and take arms
against the Republic of the Philippines, or otherwise participate in such armed public uprising, for the purpose of
removing the territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to the government and laws thereof as in fact the said
"Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" or "Hukbalahaps" have risen publicly and taken arms to attain the said purpose by
then and there making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army detachments
as well as innocent civilians, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in
furtherance thereof, have then and there committed acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned
destruction of private and public property to create and spread chaos, disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate the
accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, as. follows, to wit: (Enumeration of thirteen attacks on government forces
or civilians by Huks on May 6, 1946, August 6, 1946, April 10, 1947, May 9, 1947, August 19, 1947, June, 1946, April 28,
1949, August 25, 1950, August 26, 1950, August 25, 1950, September 12, 1950, March 28, 1950 and March 29, 1950.)

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

The information filed against the defendants in Criminal Case No. 15479, Bayani Espiritu Andres Baisa, Jr. and Teopista Valerio,
alleges:

That on or about the 6th day of May, 1946, and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto and continuously up to the
present time, in the City of Manila, the seat of the government of the Republic of the Philippines, which the herein
accused have intended to overthrow, and the place chosen for that purpose as the nerve center of all their rebellious
atrocities in the different parts of the country, the said accused being then high ranking officials and/or members of the
Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.) and/or of the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) otherwise or
formerly known as the "Hukbalahaps" (HUKS), the latter being the armed forces of said Communist Party of the
 Philippines; having come to an agreement with the 29 of the 31 accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 14071, 14082, 14270,
14315, 14344 of the Court of First Instance of Manila and decided to commit the crime of rebellion, and therefore,
conspiring and confederating with all of the 29 accused in said criminal cases, acting in accordance with their
conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, together with many others whose whereabouts and identities are still unknown
up to the filing of this information, and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
promote maintain, cause, direct and/or command the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan", (HMB) or the Hukbalahaps
(HUKS) to rise publicly and take Arms against the Government or otherwise participate therein for the purpose of
overthrowing the same, as in fact, the said "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" or Hukbalahap (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 detachment, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in
connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, by then and there committing wanton acts of murder, spoilage,
looting, arson, kidnappings, planned destruction of private and public buildings, to create and spread terrorism in order
to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, as follows to wit: (Enumeration of thirteen attacks on
Government forces or civilians by Huks on May 6, 1946. August 6, 1946, April 10, 1947, May 9, 1947, August 19, 1947,
June 1946, April 28, 1949, August 25, 1950, August 26, 1950, August 25, 1950, September 12, 1950, March 28, 1950
and March 29, 1950).

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

APPEAL OF AMADO V. HERNANDEZ

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

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

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

Testimonial Evidence

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

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

(2) On September 4, 1948 he conferred with Hindu Khomal Goufar at the Escolta, at which occasion Balgos told Goufar
that the PKM, CLO and the Huks are in one effort that the PKM are the peasants in the field and the Huks are the
armed forces of the Communist Party; and the CLO falls under the TUD of the Communist Party. 1äwphï1.ñët

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) The conspicuous display of the portrait or, pictures of Crisanto Evangelista (Exh. V-1662), founder of
Communism in the Philippines, in the session hall of the CLO headquarters at 2070 Azcarraga and then at 330
P. Campa;
 (b) The distribution of foreign communist reading materials such as the World Federation of Trade Union
Magazine, International Union of Students magazine, Voice magazine of the marine cooks of the CLO, World
Committee of the Defenders of the Peace magazine, Free Bulgaria magazine, Soviet Russia Today magazine
and World Federation of Democratic Youth magazine (Exhs. V-911, V-907, V-910, V-899, V-912, V-853, W-996
and V-967);

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

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

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

Important Documents Submitted at Trial

1. Documents which proved that Amado V. Hernandez used the aliases "Victor", or was referred to as "Victor" or
"Soliman".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(h) SEC directions to Politburo members, Soliman not to be involved with Nacionalista Rebels. (Exh. F-92-93.
SEC)
 (i) Letter of SEC to Politburo reporting that Saulo be sent out and Soliman has "tendencies of careerism and
tendency to want to deal with leaders of the party"; that he should be asked to choose to go underground or
fight legally. (Exh. F-562)

(j) Explanation given by Hernandez why he did not join Saulo in going underground. (Exh. V-87) (1) His election
as councilor until December, 1951. (Exhs. V-42, W-9) (2) His election as President of CLO until August of
following year. (Exhs. V-42, W-9)

2. Letters and Messages of Hernandez.

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

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

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

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

(e) To Kas. Pablo and Estrada - talks of the fight - fight of labor. (Exh. V-85-89)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(l) "Philippine labor Demands Justice" — Attacks czars of Wall Street and U.S. Army and Government. (Exh. V-
94) .

(m) Letter to Taruc — June 28, 1948.-States solidarity among the CLO Huks and PKM. Attacks North Atlantic
Pact. Praises Mao Tse Tung (contained in Exh. V-94)

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

(o) Article "Progressive Philippines" — (Exh. V-287)

(p) Article "Hands Off Korea" — (Exhs. V-488-494, 495-501, 509-515, W-25-26)

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

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

3. Other Activities of Hernandez.

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

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

(c) Hernandez brought Taruc's letter about facts and incidents about Huks to Bulosan for inclusion in Bulosan's
book. (Exh. FF-1)

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

(e) Supervised taking of pictures of sons of Capadocia and Joven. (Photographs, Exhs. T-1, RR-136-138A)

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

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

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

(i) Associated with fellow ranking Communist leaders.

The Court upon consideration of the evidence submitted, found (1) that the Communist Party was fully organized as a party and
in order to carry out its aims and policies a established a National Congress, a Central Committee (CC), Politburo PB, Secretariat
(SEC), Organization Bureau (OB), and National Courier or Communication Division (NCD), each body performing functions
indicated in their respective names; (2) that in a meeting held on August 11, 1950 the SEC discussed the creation of a Military
Committee of the Party and a new GHQ, under which on September 29, 1950 the SEC organized a special warfare division, with
a technological division; (3) that on May 5, 1950 a body known as the National Intelligence Division was created, to gather
essential military intelligence and, in general, all information useful for the conduct of the armed struggle (4) that a National
Finance Committee was also organized as a part of the Politburo and answerable to it; (5) that the country was divided into 10
Recos, the 10th Reco comprising the Manila and suburbs command; (6) that since November, 1949 the CPP had declared the
existence of a revolutionary situation and since then the Party had gone underground and the CPP is leading the armed struggle
for national liberation, and called on the people to organize guerrillas and coordinate with the HMB on the decisive struggle and
final overthrow of the imperialist government; (7) that in accordance with such plan the CPP prepared plans for expansion and
development not only of the Party but also of the HMB; the expansion of the cadres from 3,600 in July 1950 to 56,000 in
September 1951, the HMB from 10,800 in July 1950 to 172,000 in September 1951, et seq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That Hernandez refused to go underground is a fact which is further corroborated by the following reasons (excuses) given by
him for not going underground, namely (1) that his term of councilor of the City of Manila was to extend to December, 1951;
and (2) that he was elected President of the CLO for a term which was to end the year 1951.

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

The court below further found that Hernandez had been furnishing supplies for the Huks in the field. But the very document
dated December 3, 1949, Exhibit D-420422, cited in the decision (printed, p. 49), is to the effect that clothes and shoes that
Hernandez was supposed to have sent have not been received. It is true that some clothes had been sent thru him to the field,
but these clothes had come from a crew member of a ship of the American President Lines. He also, upon request, sent a
portable typewriter to the SEC or Politburo. Furthermore, a certain Niagara Duplicating machine received by Hernandez from
one Rolland Scott Bullard a crew member of the SS President Cleveland, appease later to have been forwarded by him to the
officers of the SEC or the Politburo.

Lastly, it further appears that Taruc and other CPP leaders used to send notes to appellant Hernandez, who in turn issued press
releases for which he found space in the local papers. His acts in this respect belong to the category of propaganda, to which he
appears to have limited his actions as a Communist.
The acts of the appellant as thus explained and analyzed fall under the category of acts of propaganda, but do not prove that he
actually and in fact conspired with the leaders of the Communist Party in the uprising or in the actual rebellion, for which acts
he is charged in the information. And his refusal to go underground because of his political commitments occasioned by his
term of election as president of the CLO and the impressions caused by his acts on the Communist leaders, to the effect that he
was in direct communication or understanding with the Nacionalista Party to which he was affiliated, creates in Us the
reasonable doubt that it was not his Communistic leanings but his political ambitions, that motivated his speeches sympathizing
with the Huks. For which reason We hold that the evidence submitted fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he has
conspired in the instigation of the rebellion for which he is held to account in this criminal case.

The question that next comes up for resolution is: Does his or anyone's membership in the Communist Party per se render
Hernandez or any Communist guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion under the provisions of Article 136 of the Revised Penal
Code? The pertinent provision reads:

ART. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection. — The conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion or insurrection shall be punished, respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which
shall not exceed 5,000 pesos, and by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

The advocacy of Communism or Communistic theory and principle is not to be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy unless
transformed or converted into an advocacy of action. In the very nature of things, mere advocacy of a theory or principle is
insufficient unless the communist advocates action, immediate and positive, the actual agreement to start an uprising or
rebellion or an agreement forged to use force and violence in an uprising of the working class to overthrow constituted
authority and seize the reins of Government itself. Unless action is actually advocated or intended or contemplated, the
Communist is a mere theorist, merely holding belief in the supremacy of the proletariat a Communist does not yet advocate the
seizing of the reins of Government by it. As a theorist the Communist is not yet actually considered as engaging in the criminal
field subject to punishment. Only when the Communist advocates action and actual uprising, war or otherwise, does he become
guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion. Borrowing the language of the Supreme Court of the United States:

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

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

The most important activity of appellant Hernandez appears to be the propagation of improvement of conditions of labor
through his organization, the CLO. While the CLO of which he is the founder and active president, has communistic tendencies,
its activity refers to the strengthening of the unity and cooperation between labor elements and preparing them for struggle;
they are not yet indoctrinated in the need of an actual war with or against Capitalism. The appellant was a politician and a labor
leader and it is not unreasonable to suspect that his labor activities especially in connection with the CLO and other trade
unions, were impelled and fostered by the desire to secure the labor vote to support his political ambitions. It is doubtful
whether his desire to foster the labor union of which he was the head was impelled by an actual desire to advance the cause of
Communism, not merely to advance his political aspirations.
Insofar as the appellant's alleged activities as a Communist are concerned, We have not found, nor has any particular act on his
part been pointed to Us, which would indicate that he had advocated action or the use of force in securing the ends of
Communism. True it is, he had friends among the leaders of the Communist Party, and especially the heads of the rebellion, but
this notwithstanding, evidence is wanting to show that he ever attended their meetings, or collaborated and conspired with
said leaders in planning and encouraging the acts of rebellion, or advancing the cause thereof. Insofar as the furnishing of the
mimeograph machine and clothes is concerned, it appears that he acted merely as an intermediary, who passed said machine
and clothes on to others. It does not appear that he himself furnished funds or material help of his own to the members of the
rebellion or to the forces of the rebellion in the field.

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

We next consider the question as to whether the fact that Hernandez delivered speeches of propaganda in favor of
Communism and in favor of rebellion can be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy to commit rebellion as defined in the
law. In this respect, the mere fact of his giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism would not make him guilty of
conspiracy, because there was no evidence that the hearers of his speeches of propaganda then and there agreed to rise up in
arms for the purpose of obtaining the overthrow of the democratic government as envisaged by the principles of Communism.
To this effect is the following comment of Viada:

CUESTION 10. El que hace propaganda entre sus convecinos, induciendoles a que el dia que se anunciara la subasta de
consumes se echaran a la calle para conseguir aunque fuera preciso acudir a la fuerza el reparto entre los vecinos ricos
solamente, sera responsable de un delito de conspiracion para la sedicion? — El Tribunal Supreme ha resuelto la
negative al casar cierta sentencia de la Audiencia de Valencia, que entendio lo contrario: "Considerando que, con
areglo a lo que dispone el art. 4. del Codigo Penal, hay conspiracion cuando dos o mas personas se conciertan para la
execution de un delito y resuelven cmeterlo; y no constando que existiera ese concierto en cuanto a los hechos que se
refieren en la tercera pregunta del veredicto, pues en ella solo se habla de los actos de induccion que el procesado
realizo, sin expresar el efecto que la mismo produjo en el animo de las personas a quienes se dirigian, ni si estas
aceptaron o no lo que se las propuso, resulta evidence que faltan los clementos integrantes de la conspiracion, etc."
(Se. de 5 de Julio de 1907, Gaceta de 7 de Enero de 1909.) (Viada, Tomo I, Codigo Penal, p. 152)

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

APPEAL OF OTHER DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

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

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

On the other hand, membership in the HMB (Hukbalahap) implies participation in an actual uprising or rebellion to secure, as
the Huks pretend, the liberation of the 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 or uprising, in which latter case he commits rebellion.

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

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

JUAN J. CRUZ

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

There is no evidence to connect him with the rebellion or to the conspiracy to commit rebellion. He should therefore be
absolved of the charges contained in the information.

AMADO RACANDAY

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

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

The letters found in his possession are dated February 14, 1950, before the Communist Party went underground. We have been
unable to find the evidence upon which the court bases its conclusion that he received contributions for the Huks. With these
circumstances in mind, We are not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that as a Communist he took part in the conspiracy
among the officials of the Communist Party to take part and support the rebellion of the Huks.

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

GENARO DE LA CRUZ

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

His membership in the Communist Party dates as far back as the year 1945. As a communist, Genaro de la Cruz received quotas
and monetary contributions coming from the areas under his jurisdiction, and one time he made a receipt from a member from
Caloocan at the CLO headquarters at Azcarraga signing the receipt as "Gonzalo" which is one of his aliases. He also distributed
copies of the "Titis" magazine. `
While his membership in the Communist Party plus his having received contributions for the party indicate that he is an active
member, it was not shown that the contributions that he received from Communist Party members were received around the
year 1950 when the Central Committee of the Communist Party had already agreed to conspire and go underground and
support the Huk rebellion. Under these circumstances We cannot find him guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion because of
the lack of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JULIAN LUMANOG

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

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

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

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

FERMIN RODILLAS

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

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

BAYANI ESPIRITU

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEFENDANTS NOT INCLUDED IN DECISION

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

PEOPLE VS. EVANGELISTA, 57 PHIL. 354 AND

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1700, DISTINGUISHED

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

On the other hand, Rep. Act 1700, known as the Anti-subversion Act, which penalizes membership in any organization or
association committed to subvert the Government, cannot be applied to the appellants because said 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 district from that of actual rebellion with which appellants are charged.

CONCLUSION

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

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-6025 May 30, 1964

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., accused,
AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

-----------------------------

G.R. No. L-6026 May 30, 1964

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
BAYANI ESPIRITU, ET AL., accused,
BAYANI ESPIRITU and TEOPISTA VALERIO, defendants-appellants.

LABRADOR, J.:

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

The information filed against defendants Hernandez and others in Criminal Case No. 15481 alleged:

I. That on or about March 15, 1945, and for some time before the said date and continuously thereafter, until the
present time, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and the place which they had chosen as the nerve center of all their
rebellious activities in the different parts of the Philippines, the said accused, conspiring, confederating and
cooperating with each other, as well as with the thirty-one (31) defendants charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 19071,
14082, 14270, 14315 and 14344 of the Court of First Instance of Manila (decided May 11, 1951) and also with others
whose whereabouts and identities are still unknown, the said accused and their other co-conspirators, being then high
ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.), which
is now actively engaged in an armed rebellion against the Government of the Philippines thru act theretofore
committed and planned to be further committed in Manila and other places in the Philippines, and of which party the
"Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan"(H.M.B.) otherwise or formerly known as the "Hukbalahaps" (Huks), unlawfully and
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously help, support, promote, maintain, cause, direct and/or
command the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) or the "Hukbalahaps" (Huks) to rise publicly and take arms
against the Republic of the Philippines, or otherwise participate in such armed public uprising, for the purpose of
removing the territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to the government and laws thereof as in fact the said
"Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" or "Hukbalahaps" have risen publicly and taken arms to attain the said purpose by
then and there making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army detachments
as well as innocent civilians, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in
furtherance thereof, have then and there committed acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned
destruction of private and public property to create and spread chaos, disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate the
accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, as. follows, to wit: (Enumeration of thirteen attacks on government forces
or civilians by Huks on May 6, 1946, August 6, 1946, April 10, 1947, May 9, 1947, August 19, 1947, June, 1946, April 28,
1949, August 25, 1950, August 26, 1950, August 25, 1950, September 12, 1950, March 28, 1950 and March 29, 1950.)

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

The information filed against the defendants in Criminal Case No. 15479, Bayani Espiritu Andres Baisa, Jr. and Teopista Valerio,
alleges:

That on or about the 6th day of May, 1946, and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto and continuously up to the
present time, in the City of Manila, the seat of the government of the Republic of the Philippines, which the herein
accused have intended to overthrow, and the place chosen for that purpose as the nerve center of all their rebellious
atrocities in the different parts of the country, the said accused being then high ranking officials and/or members of the
Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.) and/or of the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" (H.M.B.) otherwise or
formerly known as the "Hukbalahaps" (HUKS), the latter being the armed forces of said Communist Party of the
Philippines; having come to an agreement with the 29 of the 31 accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 14071, 14082, 14270,
14315, 14344 of the Court of First Instance of Manila and decided to commit the crime of rebellion, and therefore,
conspiring and confederating with all of the 29 accused in said criminal cases, acting in accordance with their
conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, together with many others whose whereabouts and identities are still unknown
up to the filing of this information, and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
promote maintain, cause, direct and/or command the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan", (HMB) or the Hukbalahaps
(HUKS) to rise publicly and take Arms against the Government or otherwise participate therein for the purpose of
overthrowing the same, as in fact, the said "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" or Hukbalahap (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 detachment, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in
connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, by then and there committing wanton acts of murder, spoilage,
looting, arson, kidnappings, planned destruction of private and public buildings, to create and spread terrorism in order
to facilitate the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose, as follows to wit: (Enumeration of thirteen attacks on
Government forces or civilians by Huks on May 6, 1946. August 6, 1946, April 10, 1947, May 9, 1947, August 19, 1947,
June 1946, April 28, 1949, August 25, 1950, August 26, 1950, August 25, 1950, September 12, 1950, March 28, 1950
and March 29, 1950).

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

APPEAL OF AMADO V. HERNANDEZ

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

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

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

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

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

(2) On September 4, 1948 he conferred with Hindu Khomal Goufar at the Escolta, at which occasion Balgos told Goufar
that the PKM, CLO and the Huks are in one effort that the PKM are the peasants in the field and the Huks are the
armed forces of the Communist Party; and the CLO falls under the TUD of the Communist Party. 1äwphï1.ñët

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) A good majority of the members of the Executive Committee and the Central Committee of the CLO were also top
ranking officials of the Communist Party; activities undertaken by the TUD - the vital undertaking of the TUD is to see
that the directives coming from the organizational bureau of the Communist Party can be discussed within the CLO
especially the Executive Committee. And it is a fact that since a good majority of the members of the Executive
Committee are party members, there is no time, there is no single time that those directives and decisions of the
organizational department, thru the TUD are being objected to by the Executive Committee of the CLO. These
directives refer to how the CLO will conduct its functions. The executive committee is under the chairmanship of
accused Amado V. Hernandez.
 (3) The CLO played its role in the overall Communist program of armed overthrow of the present government and its
replacement by the dictatorship of the proletariat by means of propaganda - by propagating the principles of
Communism, by giving monetary aid, clothing, medicine and other forms of material help to the HMB. This role is
manifested in the very constitution of the CLO itself which expounded the theory of classless society and the
eradication of social classes (par. 5, Sec. 1, Art. 2, page 18 of the CLO Constitution contained in the Fourth Annual
Convention Souvenir Program of the CLO Exh. "V-1579"). Thru propaganda, the CLO promoted the aims of Communist
Party and disseminated Communist ideas by:

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

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

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

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

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

Important Documents Submitted at Trial

1. Documents which proved that Amado V. Hernandez used the aliases "Victor", or was referred to as "Victor" or
"Soliman".

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

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

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

(d) Letter of Elias to Ka Eto requesting the latter to deliver attached letter to Victor. (Exh. 1103)
 (e) Saulo's letter about his escape, asks Victor why his press statement was not published in the newspapers.
(Exh. C-362) Letter was however published by Hernandez in the Daily Mirror.

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

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

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

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

(j) Explanation given by Hernandez why he did not join Saulo in going underground. (Exh. V-87) (1) His election
as councilor until December, 1951. (Exhs. V-42, W-9) (2) His election as President of CLO until August of
following year. (Exhs. V-42, W-9)

2. Letters and Messages of Hernandez.

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

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

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

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

(e) To Kas. Pablo and Estrada - talks of the fight - fight of labor. (Exh. V-85-89)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(l) "Philippine labor Demands Justice" — Attacks czars of Wall Street and U.S. Army and Government. (Exh. V-
94) .

(m) Letter to Taruc — June 28, 1948.-States solidarity among the CLO Huks and PKM. Attacks North Atlantic
Pact. Praises Mao Tse Tung (contained in Exh. V-94)
 (n) "Philippines Is Not A Paradise" — States of a delegation to Roxas attacking unemployment. (Exh. V-90-93)

(o) Article "Progressive Philippines" — (Exh. V-287)

(p) Article "Hands Off Korea" — (Exhs. V-488-494, 495-501, 509-515, W-25-26)

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

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

3. Other Activities of Hernandez.

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

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

(c) Hernandez brought Taruc's letter about facts and incidents about Huks to Bulosan for inclusion in Bulosan's
book. (Exh. FF-1)

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

(e) Supervised taking of pictures of sons of Capadocia and Joven. (Photographs, Exhs. T-1, RR-136-138A)

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

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

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

(i) Associated with fellow ranking Communist leaders.

The Court upon consideration of the evidence submitted, found (1) that the Communist Party was fully organized as a party and
in order to carry out its aims and policies a established a National Congress, a Central Committee (CC), Politburo PB, Secretariat
(SEC), Organization Bureau (OB), and National Courier or Communication Division (NCD), each body performing functions
indicated in their respective names; (2) that in a meeting held on August 11, 1950 the SEC discussed the creation of a Military
Committee of the Party and a new GHQ, under which on September 29, 1950 the SEC organized a special warfare division, with
a technological division; (3) that on May 5, 1950 a body known as the National Intelligence Division was created, to gather
essential military intelligence and, in general, all information useful for the conduct of the armed struggle (4) that a National
Finance Committee was also organized as a part of the Politburo and answerable to it; (5) that the country was divided into 10
Recos, the 10th Reco comprising the Manila and suburbs command; (6) that since November, 1949 the CPP had declared the
existence of a revolutionary situation and since then the Party had gone underground and the CPP is leading the armed struggle
for national liberation, and called on the people to organize guerrillas and coordinate with the HMB on the decisive struggle and
final overthrow of the imperialist government; (7) that in accordance with such plan the CPP prepared plans for expansion and
development not only of the Party but also of the HMB; the expansion of the cadres from 3,600 in July 1950 to 56,000 in
September 1951, the HMB from 10,800 in July 1950 to 172,000 in September 1951, et seq.

Around the month of January, 1950 it was decided by the CPP to intensify HMB military operations for political purposes. The
Politburo sanctioned the attacks made by the Huks on the anniversary of the HMB on March 25, 1950. The HMB attacks that
were reported to the PB were those made in May, 1946; June, 1946; April 10, 1947; May 9, 1947; August 19, 1947; August 25,
1950; August 26, 1950; October 15 and 17, 1950; May 6, 1946; August 6, 1946; April 10, 1947; May 9, 1947; August 19, 1947;
April 29, 1949; August 25, 1950; August 26, 1950; September 12, 1950; March 26, 1950; March 29, 1950.
 The theory of the prosecution, as stated in the lower court's decision, is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hernandez is the founder and head of the CLO. As such, what was his relation to the rebellion? If, as testified to by Guillermo S.
Calayag, the CLO plays merely the role of propagation by lectures, meetings and organization of committees of education by
Communists; if, as stated, the CLO merely allowed Communist Party leaders to act as organizers in the different factories, to
indoctrinate the CLO members into the Communist Party and proselytize them to the Communist ideology; if, as also indicated
by Calayag, the CLO purports to attain the ultimate overthrow of the Government first by making demands from employers for
concessions until the employers find it difficult to grant the same, at which time a strike is declared; if it is only after the various
strikes have been carried out and a crisis is thereby developed among the laboring class, that the Communist forces would
intervene and carry the revolution — it is apparent that the CLO was merely a stepping stone in the preparation of the laborers
for the Communist' ultimate revolution. In other words, the CLO had no function but that of indoctrination and preparation of
the members for the uprising that would come. It was only a preparatory organization prior to revolution, not the revolution
itself. The leader of the CLO therefore, namely Hernandez, cannot be considered as a leader in actual rebellion or of the actual
uprising subject of the accusation. Hernandez, as President of the CLO therefore, by his presidency and leadership of the CLO
cannot be considered as having actually risen up in arms in rebellion against the Government of the Philippines, or taken part in
the conspiracy to commit the rebellion as charged against him in the present case; he was merely a propagandist and
indoctrinator of Communism, he was not a Communist conspiring to commit the actual rebellion by the mere fact of his
presidency of the CLO.

The court below declares that since November 1949 the Communist Party of the Philippines had declared the existence of the
revolutionary situation and since then the Party had gone underground, with the CPP leading the struggle for national
integration and that in the month of January 1950, it was decided by the said Party to intensify the HMB military operations for
political purposes. The court implicates the appellant Hernandez as a co-conspirator in this resolution or acts of the Communist
Party by his mere membership thereto. We find this conclusion unwarranted. The seditious speeches of Hernandez took place
before November, 1949 when the CPP went underground. The court below has not been able to point out, nor have We been
able to find among all acts attributed to Hernandez, any single fact or act of his from which it may be inferred that he took part
in the deliberations declaring the existence of a revolutionary situation, or that he had gone underground. As a matter of fact
the prosecution's evidence is to the effect that Hernandez refused to go underground preferring to engage in what they
consider the legal battle for the cause.

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

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

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

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

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

That Hernandez refused to go underground is a fact which is further corroborated by the following reasons (excuses) given by
him for not going underground, namely (1) that his term of councilor of the City of Manila was to extend to December, 1951;
and (2) that he was elected President of the CLO for a term which was to end the year 1951.

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

The court below further found that Hernandez had been furnishing supplies for the Huks in the field. But the very document
dated December 3, 1949, Exhibit D-420422, cited in the decision (printed, p. 49), is to the effect that clothes and shoes that
Hernandez was supposed to have sent have not been received. It is true that some clothes had been sent thru him to the field,
but these clothes had come from a crew member of a ship of the American President Lines. He also, upon request, sent a
portable typewriter to the SEC or Politburo. Furthermore, a certain Niagara Duplicating machine received by Hernandez from
one Rolland Scott Bullard a crew member of the SS President Cleveland, appease later to have been forwarded by him to the
officers of the SEC or the Politburo.

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

The acts of the appellant as thus explained and analyzed fall under the category of acts of propaganda, but do not prove that he
actually and in fact conspired with the leaders of the Communist Party in the uprising or in the actual rebellion, for which acts
he is charged in the information. And his refusal to go underground because of his political commitments occasioned by his
term of election as president of the CLO and the impressions caused by his acts on the Communist leaders, to the effect that he
was in direct communication or understanding with the Nacionalista Party to which he was affiliated, creates in Us the
reasonable doubt that it was not his Communistic leanings but his political ambitions, that motivated his speeches sympathizing
with the Huks. For which reason We hold that the evidence submitted fails to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he has
conspired in the instigation of the rebellion for which he is held to account in this criminal case.

The question that next comes up for resolution is: Does his or anyone's membership in the Communist Party per se render
Hernandez or any Communist guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion under the provisions of Article 136 of the Revised Penal
Code? The pertinent provision reads:

ART. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection. — The conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion or insurrection shall be punished, respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which
shall not exceed 5,000 pesos, and by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos.

The advocacy of Communism or Communistic theory and principle is not to be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy unless
transformed or converted into an advocacy of action. In the very nature of things, mere advocacy of a theory or principle is
insufficient unless the communist advocates action, immediate and positive, the actual agreement to start an uprising or
rebellion or an agreement forged to use force and violence in an uprising of the working class to overthrow constituted
authority and seize the reins of Government itself. Unless action is actually advocated or intended or contemplated, the
Communist is a mere theorist, merely holding belief in the supremacy of the proletariat a Communist does not yet advocate the
seizing of the reins of Government by it. As a theorist the Communist is not yet actually considered as engaging in the criminal
field subject to punishment. Only when the Communist advocates action and actual uprising, war or otherwise, does he become
guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion. Borrowing the language of the Supreme Court of the United States:

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

What must be met, then, is the argument that membership, even when accompanied by the elements of knowledge
and specific intent, affords an insufficient quantum of participation in the organization's alleged criminal activity, that
is, an insufficiently significant form of aid and encouragement to permit the imposition of criminal sanctions on that
basis. It must indeed be recognized that a person who merely becomes a member of an illegal organization, by that
"act" alone need be doing nothing more than signifying his assent to its purposes and activities on one hand, and
providing, on the other, only the sort of moral encouragement which comes from the knowledge that others believe in
what the organization is doing. It may indeed be argued that such assent and encouragement do fall short of the
concrete, practical impetus given to a criminal enterprise which is lent for instance by a commitment on the part of the
conspirator to act in furtherance of that enterprise. A member, as distinguished from a conspirator, may indicate his
approval of a criminal enterprise by the very fact of his membership without thereby necessarily committing himself to
further it by any act or course of conduct whatever. (Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203, 6 L. ed. 782)
The most important activity of appellant Hernandez appears to be the propagation of improvement of conditions of labor
through his organization, the CLO. While the CLO of which he is the founder and active president, has communistic tendencies,
its activity refers to the strengthening of the unity and cooperation between labor elements and preparing them for struggle;
they are not yet indoctrinated in the need of an actual war with or against Capitalism. The appellant was a politician and a labor
leader and it is not unreasonable to suspect that his labor activities especially in connection with the CLO and other trade
unions, were impelled and fostered by the desire to secure the labor vote to support his political ambitions. It is doubtful
whether his desire to foster the labor union of which he was the head was impelled by an actual desire to advance the cause of
Communism, not merely to advance his political aspirations.

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

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

We next consider the question as to whether the fact that Hernandez delivered speeches of propaganda in favor of
Communism and in favor of rebellion can be considered as a criminal act of conspiracy to commit rebellion as defined in the
law. In this respect, the mere fact of his giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism would not make him guilty of
conspiracy, because there was no evidence that the hearers of his speeches of propaganda then and there agreed to rise up in
arms for the purpose of obtaining the overthrow of the democratic government as envisaged by the principles of Communism.
To this effect is the following comment of Viada:

CUESTION 10. El que hace propaganda entre sus convecinos, induciendoles a que el dia que se anunciara la subasta de
consumes se echaran a la calle para conseguir aunque fuera preciso acudir a la fuerza el reparto entre los vecinos ricos
solamente, sera responsable de un delito de conspiracion para la sedicion? — El Tribunal Supreme ha resuelto la
negative al casar cierta sentencia de la Audiencia de Valencia, que entendio lo contrario: "Considerando que, con
areglo a lo que dispone el art. 4. del Codigo Penal, hay conspiracion cuando dos o mas personas se conciertan para la
execution de un delito y resuelven cmeterlo; y no constando que existiera ese concierto en cuanto a los hechos que se
refieren en la tercera pregunta del veredicto, pues en ella solo se habla de los actos de induccion que el procesado
realizo, sin expresar el efecto que la mismo produjo en el animo de las personas a quienes se dirigian, ni si estas
aceptaron o no lo que se las propuso, resulta evidence que faltan los clementos integrantes de la conspiracion, etc."
(Se. de 5 de Julio de 1907, Gaceta de 7 de Enero de 1909.) (Viada, Tomo I, Codigo Penal, p. 152)

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

APPEAL OF OTHER DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

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

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

On the other hand, membership in the HMB (Hukbalahap) implies participation in an actual uprising or rebellion to secure, as
the Huks pretend, the liberation of the 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 or uprising, in which latter case he commits rebellion.

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

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

JUAN J. CRUZ

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

There is no evidence to connect him with the rebellion or to the conspiracy to commit rebellion. He should therefore be
absolved of the charges contained in the information.

AMADO RACANDAY

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

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

The letters found in his possession are dated February 14, 1950, before the Communist Party went underground. We have been
unable to find the evidence upon which the court bases its conclusion that he received contributions for the Huks. With these
circumstances in mind, We are not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that as a Communist he took part in the conspiracy
among the officials of the Communist Party to take part and support the rebellion of the Huks.

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

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

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

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

JULIAN LUMANOG

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

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

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

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

FERMIN RODILLAS

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

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

BAYANI ESPIRITU

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

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

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

TEOPISTA VALERIO

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

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

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

DEFENDANTS NOT INCLUDED IN DECISION

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

PEOPLE VS. EVANGELISTA, 57 PHIL. 354 AND

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1700, DISTINGUISHED

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

On the other hand, Rep. Act 1700, known as the Anti-subversion Act, which penalizes membership in any organization or
association committed to subvert the Government, cannot be applied to the appellants because said 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 district from that of actual rebellion with which appellants are charged.

CONCLUSION

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

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 81567 October 3, 1991

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ROBERTO UMIL, ROLANDO DURAL and RENATO VILLANUEVA,
MANOLITA O. UMIL and NICANOR P. DURAL, FELICITAS V. SESE, petitioners,
vs.
FIDEL V. RAMOS, MAJ. GEN. RENATO DE VILLA, BRIG. GEN. RAMON MONTANO, BRIG. GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, respondents.

G.R. Nos. 84581-82 October 3, 1991

AMELIA ROQUE and WILFREDO BUENAOBRA, petitioners,

vs.
GEN. RENATO DE VILLA and GEN, RAMON MONTANO, respondents.

G.R. Nos. 84583-84 October 3, 1991

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ATTY. DOMINGO T. ANONUEVO and RAMON CASIPLE: DOMINGO T.
ANONUEVO and RAMON CASIPLE, petitioners,
vs.
HON. FIDEL V. RAMOS, GEN. RENATO S. DE VILLA, COL. EVARISTO CARIÑO, LT. COL. REX D. PIAD, T/SGT. CONRADO DE TORRES,
S/SGT. ARNOLD DURIAN, and Commanding Officer, PC-INP Detention Center, Camp Crame, Quezon City, respondents.

G.R. No. 83162 October 3, 1991

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VICKY A. OCAYA AND DANNY RIVERA: VIRGILIO A.
OCAYA, petitioners,
vs.
BRIG. GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, COL. HERCULES CATALUNA, COL. NESTOR MARIANO, respondents.

G.R. No. 85727 October 3, 1991

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF DEOGRACIAS ESPIRITU, petitioner,

vs.
BRIG. GEN.ALFREDO S. LIM, COL. RICARDO REYES, respondents.

G.R. No. 86332 October 3, 1991

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF NARCISO B. NAZARENO: ALFREDO NAZARENO,petitioner,
vs.
THE STATION COMMANDER OF THE MUNTINGLUPA POLICE STATION, Muntinglupa, Metro Manila, P/SGT. JACINTO MEDINA,
P/SGT. ELADIO TAGLE, P/SGT. LEVI SOLEDAD, and P/SGT. MALTRO AROJADO, respondents.
Efren H. Mercado for petitioners in G.R. No. 81567 and G. R. No. 83162.

Ricardo C. Valmonte for petitioners in G.R. Nos. 84581-82

Josefina G. Campbell-Castillo for petitioners in G.R. Nos. 84583-84.

Potenciano A. Flores, Jr. for petitioner in G.R. No. 85727.

The Solicitor General for the respondents.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:p

Before the Court are separate motions filed by the petitioners in the above-entitled petitions, seeking reconsideration of the
Court's decision promulgated on 9 July 1990 (the decision, for brevity) which dismissed the petitions, with the following
dispositive part:

WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED, except that in G.R. No. 85727 (Espiritu vs. Lim), the bail bond for
petitioner's provisional liberty is hereby ordered reduced from P60,000.00 to P10,000.00. No costs.

The Court avails of this opportunity to clarify its ruling a begins with the statement that the decision did not rule — as many
misunderstood it to do — that mere suspicion that one is Communist Party or New People's Army member is a valid ground for
his arrest without warrant. Moreover, the decision merely applied long existing laws to the factual situations obtaining in the
several petitions. Among these laws are th outlawing the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) similar organizations and
penalizing membership therein be dealt with shortly). It is elementary, in this connection, if these laws no longer reflect the
thinking or sentiment of the people, it is Congress as the elected representative of the people — not the Court — that should
repeal, change or modify them.

In their separate motions for reconsideration, petitioners, in sum, maintain:

1. That the assailed decision, in upholding the validity of the questioned arrests made without warrant, and in relying
on the provisions of the Rules of Court, particularly Section 5 of Rule 113 (Arrest), disregards the fact that such arrests
violated the constitutional rights of the persons arrested;

2. That the doctrine laid down in Garcia vs. Enrile 1 and Ilagan vs. Enrile 2 should be abandoned;

3. That the decision erred in considering the admissions made by the persons arrested as to their membership in the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army, and
their ownership of the unlicensed firearms, ammunitions and subversive documents found in their possession at the time of arrest, inasmuch as those confessions do not comply
with the requirements on admissibility of extrajudicial admissions;

4. That the assailed decision is based on a misappreciation of facts;

5. That G.R. No. 81567 (the Umil case) should not be deemed moot and academic.

We find no merit in the motions for reconsideration.

 The writ of habeas corpus exists as a speedy and effective remedy
It can not be overlooked that these are petitions for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, filed by petitioners under the Rules of Court. 3

to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. 4 Therefore, the function of the special proceedings of habeas corpus is to inquire
into the legality of one's detention, 5 so that if detention is illegal, the detainee may be ordered forthwit released.

In the petitions at bar, to ascertain whether the detention petitioners was illegal or not, the Court before rendering decision dated 9 July 1990, looked into whether their questioned arrests
without warrant were made in accordance with law. For, if the arrests were made in accordance with law, would follow that the detention resulting from such arrests also in accordance with
law.

The law expressly allowing arrests witho

There can be no dispute that, as a general rule, no peace officer or person has the power or authority to arrest anyo without a warrant of arrest, except in those cases express authorized by law. 6

warrant is found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court which states the grounds upon which a valid arrest, without
warrant, can be conducted.

In the present cases, the focus is understandably on Section 5, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the said Rule 113, which read:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to he arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrest has committed it; and

. . . (Emphasis supplied).

The Court's decision of 9 July 1990 rules that the arrest Rolando Dural (G.R. No. 81567) without warrant is justified it can be said
that, within the contemplation of Section 5 Rule 113, he (Dural) was committing an offense, when arrested because Dural was
arrested for being a member of the New People's Army, an outlawed organization, where membership penalized, 7 and for
subversion which, like rebellion is, under the doctrine of Garcia vs. Enrile, 8 a continuing offense, thus:

The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and other crimes
and offenses committed in the furtherance (sic) on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection
therewith under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045, are all in the nature of continuing offenses which set them apart
from the common offenses, aside from their essentially involving a massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude. . . .

Given the ideological content of membership in the CPP/NPA which includes armed struggle for the overthrow of organized
government, Dural did not cease to be, or became less of a subversive, FOR PURPOSES OF ARREST, simply because he was, at
the time of arrest, confined in the St. Agnes Hospital. Dural was identified as one of several persons who the day before his
arrest, without warrant, at the St. Agnes Hospital, had shot two (2) CAPCOM policemen in their patrol car. That Dural had shot
the two (2) policemen in Caloocan City as part of his mission as a "sparrow" (NPA member) did not end there and then. Dural,
given another opportunity, would have shot or would shoot other policemen anywhere as agents or representatives of
organized government. It is in this sense that subversion like rebellion (or insurrection) is perceived here as a continuing
offense. Unlike other so-called "common" offenses, i.e. adultery, murder, arson, etc., which generally end upon their
commission, subversion and rebellion are anchored on an ideological base which compels the repetition of the same acts of
lawlessness and violence until the overriding objective of overthrowing organized government is attained.

Nor can it be said that Dural's arrest was grounded on mere suspicion by the arresting officers of his membership in the
CPP/NPA. His arrest was based on "probable cause," as supported by actual facts that will be shown hereafter.
Viewed from another but related perspective, it may also be said, under the facts of the Umil case, that the arrest of Dural falls
under Section 5, paragraph (b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which requires two (2) conditions for a valid arrestt without
warrant: first, that the person to be arrested has just committed an offense, and second, that the arresting peace officer or
private person has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested is the one who committed the offense.
Section 5(b), Rule 113, it will be noted, refers to arrests without warrant, based on "personal knowledge of facts" acquired by
the arresting officer or private person.

It has been ruled that "personal knowledge of facts," in arrests without warrant must be based upon probable cause, which
means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion 9

The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the

A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the
probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. 10

part of the peace officers making the arrest. 11

These requisites were complied with in the Umil case and in the other cases at bar.

In G.R. No. 81567 (Umil case), military agents, on 1 February 1988, were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential information which was received by their office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said hospital
with a gunshot wound; that the information further disclosed that the wounded man in the said hospital was among the five (5) male "sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00 o'clock noon, before a road hump along Macanining
St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City; that based on the same information, the wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon," twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna. 12

Said confidential information received by the arresting officers, to the effect that an NPA member ("sparrow unit") was being treated for a gunshot wound in the named hospital, is deemed
reasonable and with cause as it was based on actual facts and supported by circumstances sufficient to engender a belief that an NPA member was truly in the said hospital. The actual facts
supported by circumstances are: first — the day before, or on 31 January 1988, two (2) CAPCOM soldiers were actually killed in Bagong Bario, Caloocan City by five (5) "sparrows" including
Dural; second — a wounded person listed in the hospital records as "Ronnie Javellon" was actually then being treated in St. Agnes Hospital for a gunshot wound; third — as the records of this
case disclosed later, "Ronnie Javellon" and his address entered in the hospital records were fictitious and the wounded man was in reality Rolando Dural.

believe that the confidential

In fine, the confidential information received by the arresting officers merited their immediate attention and action and, in fact, it was found to be true. Even the petitioners in their motion for reconsideration, 13

information of the arresting officers to the effect that Dural was then being treated in St. Agnes Hospital was actually received
from the attending doctor and hospital management in compliance with the directives of the law, 14 and, therefore, came from
reliable sources.

As to the condition that "probable cause" must also be coupled with acts done in good faith by the officers who make the
arrest, the Court notes that the peace officers wno arrested Dural are deemed to have conducted the same in good faith,
considering that law enforcers are presumed to regularly perform their official duties. The records show that the arresting
officers did not appear to have been ill-motivated in arresting Dural. 15 It is therefore clear that the arrest, without warrant, of
Dural was made in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5, Rule 113.

Parenthetically, it should be mentioned here that a few day after Dural's arrest, without warrant, an information charging
double murder with assault against agents of persons in authority was filed against Dural in the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan
City (Criminal Case No. C-30112). He was thus promptly placed under judicial custody (as distinguished fro custody of the
arresting officers). On 31 August 1988, he wa convicted of the crime charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The
judgment of conviction is now on appeal before this Court in G.R. No. 84921.

As to Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra (G.R. Nos. 84581-82), Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple (G.R. Nos. 84583-84)
and Vicky Ocaya (G.R. No. 83162), their arrests, without warrant, are also justified. They were searched pursuant to search
warrants issued by a court of law and were found wit unlicensed firearms, explosives and/or ammunition in their persons. They
were, therefore, caught in flagrante delicto which justified their outright arrests without warrant, under Sec 5(a), Rule 113,
Rules of Court. Parenthetically, it should be mentioned here that a few davs after their arrests without warrant, informations
were filed in court against said petitioners, thereby placing them within judicial custody and disposition. Furthermore,
Buenaobra mooted his own petition fo habeas corpus by announcing to this Court during the hearing of these petitions that he
had chosen to remain in detention in the custody of the authorities.

More specifically, the antecedent facts in the "in flagrante" cases are:

1. On 27 June 1988, the military agents received information imparted by a former NPA about the operations of the
CPP and NPA in Metro Manila and that a certain house occupied by one Renato Constantine, located in the Villaluz
Compound, Molave St., Marikina Heights, Marikina, Metro Manila was being used as their safehouse; that in view of
this information, the said house was placed under military surveillance and on 12 August 1988, pursuant to a search
warrant duly issued by court, a search of the house was conducted; that when Renato Constantine was then
confronted he could not produce any permit to possess the firearms, ammunitions, radio and other communications
equipment, and he admitted that he was a ranking member of the CPP. 16

2. In the case of Wilfredo Buenaobra, he arrived at the house of Renato Constantino in the evening of 12 August 1988, and admitted that he was an NPA courier and he had with
him letters to Renato Constantine and other members of the rebel group.

3. On the other hand, the arrest of Amelia Roque was a consequence of the arrest of Buenaobra who had in his possession papers leading to the whereabouts of Roque; 17 that, at the time of her arrest, the military agents found subversive documents and live ammunitions, and
she admitted then that the documents belonged to her. 18

4. As regards Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple they were arrested without warrant on 13 August 1988, when they arrived at the said house of Renato Constantine in the evening of said date; that when the agents frisked them, subversive documents, and loaded guns were
found in the latter's possession but failing to show a permit to possess them. 19

5. With regard to Vicky Ocaya, she was arrested, without warrant when she arrived (on 12 May 1988) at the premises ofthe house of one Benito Tiamzon who was believed to be the head of the CPP/NPA, and whose house was subject of a search warrant duly issued by the court.
At the time of her arrest without warrant the agents of the PC-Intelligence and Investigation found ammunitions and subversive documents in the car of Ocaya. 20

It is to be noted in the above cases (Roque, Buenaobra, Anonuevo, Casiple and Ocaya) that the reason which compelled the military agents to make the arrests without warrant was the
information given to the military authorities that two (2) safehouses (one occupied by Renato Constantine and the other by Benito Tiamzon) were being used by the CPP/NPA for their
operations, with information as to their exact location and the names of Renato Constantine and Benito Tiamzon as residents or occupants thereof.

And at the time of the actual arrests, the following circumstances surrounded said arrests (of Roque, Buenaobra, Anonuevo and Casiple), which confirmed the belief of the military agents that
the information they had received was true and the persons to be arrested were probably guilty of the commission of certain crimes: first: search warrant was duly issued to effect the search
of the Constantine safehouse; second: found in the safehouse was a person named Renato Constantine, who admitted that he was a ranking member of the CPP, and found in his possession
were unlicensed firearms and communications equipment; third: at the time of their arrests, in their possession were unlicensed firearms, ammunitions and/or subversive documents, and they
admitted ownership thereof as well as their membership in the CPP/NPA. And then, shortly after their arrests, they were positively identified by their former comrades in the organization as
CPP/NPA members. In view of these circumstances, the corresponding informations were filed in court against said arrested persons. The records also show that, as in the case of Dural, the
arrests without warrant made by the military agents in the Constantino safehouse and later in the Amelia Roque house, do not appear to have been ill-motivated or irregularly performed.

With all these facts and circumstances existing before, during and after the arrest of the afore-named persons (Dural, Buenaobra, Roque, Anonuevo, Casiple and Ocaya), no prudent an can say
that it would have been better for the military agents not to have acted at all and made any arrest. That would have been an unpardonable neglect of official duty and a cause for disciplinary
action against the peace officers involved.

An
For, one of the duties of law enforcers is to arrest lawbreakers in order to place them in the hands of executive and judicial authorities upon whom devolves the duty to investigate the acts constituting the alleged violation of law and to prosecute and secure the punishment therefor. 21

arrest is therefore in the nature of an administrative measure. The power to arrest without warrant is without limitation as long
as the requirements of Section 5, Rule 113 are met. This rule is founded on an overwhelming public interest in peace and order
in our communities.

In ascertaining whether the arrest without warrant is conducted in accordance with the conditions set forth in Section 5, Rule
113, this Court determines not whether the persons arrested are indeed guilty of committing the crime for which they were
arrested. 22 Not evidence of guilt, but "probable cause" is the reason that can validly compel the peace officers, in the
performance of their duties and in the interest of public order, to conduct an arrest without warrant. 23
The courts should not expect of law-enforcers more than what the law requires of them. Under the conditions set forth in Section 5, Rule 113, particularly paragraph (b) thereof, even if the arrested persons are later found to be innocent and acquitted, the arresting officers are not

But if they do not strictly comply with the said conditions, the arresting officers can be held liable for the crime of arbitrary
liable. 24

detention, 25 for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code 26 and/or for other administrative sanctions.

In G.R. No. 85727, Espiritu, on 23 November 1988, was arrested without warrant, on the basis of the attestation of certain
witnesses: that about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 22 November 1988, at the corner of Magsaysay Boulevard and Velencia
St., Sta. Mesa, Manila, Espiritu spoke at a gathering of drivers and sympathizers, where he said, among other things:

Bukas tuloy ang welga natin . . . hanggang sa magkagulona. 27 (Emphasis supplied)

Espiritu was arrested

and that the police authorities were present during the press conference held at the National Press Club (NPC) on 22 November 1988 where Espiritu called for a nationwide strike (of jeepney and bus drivers) on 23 November 1988. 28

without warrant, not for subversion or any "continuing offense," but for uttering the above-quoted language which, in the
perception of the arresting officers, was inciting to sedition.

Many persons may differ as to the validity of such perception and regard the language as falling within free speech guaranteed
by the Constitution. But, then, Espiritu had not lost the right to insist, during the pre-trial or trial on the merits, that he was just
exercising his right to free speech regardless of the charged atmosphere in which it was uttered. But, the authority of the peace
officers to make the arrest, without warrant, at the time the words were uttered, or soon thereafter, is still another thing. In the
balancing of authority and freedom, which obviously becomes difficult at times, the Court has, in this case, tilted the scale in
favor of authority but only for purposes of the arrest (not conviction). Let it be noted that the Court has ordered the bail for
Espiritu's release to be reduced from P60,000.00 to P10,000.00.

Let it also be noted that supervening events have made the Espiritu case moot and academic. For Espiritu had before
arraignment asked the court a quo for re-investigation, the peace officers did not appear. Because of this development, the
defense asked the court a quo at the resumption of the hearings to dismiss the case. Case against Espiritu (Criminal Case No.
88-68385) has been provisionally dismissed and his bail bond cancelled.

In G.R. No. 86332 (Nazareno), the records show that in the morning of 14 December 1988, Romulo Bunye II was killed by a
group of men in Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila; that at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning of 28 December 1988, Ramil
Regala, one of the suspects in the said killing, was arrested and he pointed to Narciso Nazareno as one of his companions during
the killing of Bunye II; that at 7:20 of the same morning (28 December 1988), the police agents arrested Nazareno, without
warrant, for investigation. 29

Although the killing of Bunye II occurred on 14 December 1988, while Nazareno's arrest without warrant was made only on 28 December 1988, or 14 days later, the arrest fans under Section
5(b) of Rule 113, since it was only on 28 December 1988 that the police authorities came to know that Nazareno was probably one of those guilty in the killing of Bunye II and the arrest had to
be made promptly, even without warrant, (after the police were alerted) and despite the lapse of fourteen (14) days to prevent possible flight.

As shown in the decision under consideration, this Court, in upholding the arrest without warrant of Nazareno noted several facts and events surrounding his arrest and detention, as follows:

. . . on 3 January 1989 (or six (6) days after his arrest without warrant), an information charging Narciso Nazareno, Ramil Regala and two (2) others, with the killing of Romulo
Bunye II was filed wit the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila. The case is dock eted therein as Criminal Case No. 731.

On 7 January 1989, Narciso Nazareno filed a motion to post bail but the motion was denied by the trial court in an order dated 10 January 1989, even as the motion to post bail,
earlier filed by his co-accused, Manuel Laureaga, was granted by the same trial court.

On 13 January 1989, a petition for habeas corpus was filed with this Court on behalf of Narciso Nazareno and on 13 January 1989, the Court issued the writ of habeas corpus,
retumable to the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bifian, Laguna, Branch 24, ordering said court to hear the case on 30 January 1989 and thereafter resolve the
petition.

At the conclusion of the hearing, or on 1 February 1989, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna issued a resolution denying the petition for habeas corpus,
it appearing that the said Narciso Nazareno is in the custody of the respondents by reason of an information filed against him with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila
which liad taken cognizance of said case and had, in fact, denied the motion for bail filed by said Narciso Nazareno (presumably because of the strength of the evidence against
him).
This Court reiterates that shortly after the arrests of Espiritu and Nazareno, the corresponding informations against them were filed in court. The arrests of Espiritu and Nazareno were based
on probable cause and supported by factual circumstances. They complied with conditions set forth in Section 5(b) of Rule 113. They were not arbitrary or whimsical arrests.

Parenthetically, it should be here stated that Nazareno has since been convicted by the court a quo for murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He has appealed the judgment of
conviction to the Court of Appeals where it is pending as of this date ( CA-G.R. No. still undocketed).

Petitioners contend that the decision of 9 July 1990 ignored the contitution requisiteds for admissibility of an extrajudicial admission.

that he was an NPA courier. On the other hand, in the case of Amelia Roque, she admitted 31 that the
In the case of Buenaobra (G.R. Nos. 84581-82), he admitted 30

unlicensed firearms, ammunition and subversive documents found in her possession during her arrest, belonged to her.

The Court, it is true, took into account the admissions of the arrested persons of their membership in the CPP/NPA, as well as
their ownership of the unlicensed firearms, ammunitions and documents in their possession. But again, these admissions, as
revealed by the records, strengthen the Court's perception that truly the grounds upon which the arresting officers based their
arrests without warrant, are supported by probable cause, i.e. that the persons arrested were probably guilty of the
commission of certain offenses, in compliance with Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. To note these admissions, on the
other hand, is not to rule that the persons arrested are already guilty of the offenses upon which their warrantless arrests were
predicated. The task of determining the guilt or innocence of persons arrested without warrant is not proper in a petition
for habeas corpus. It pertains to the trial of the case on the merits.

As to the argument that the doctrines in Garcia vs. Enrile, and Ilagan vs. Enrile should be abandoned, this Court finds no
compelling reason at this time to disturb the same, particularly ln the light of prevailing conditions where national security and
liability are still directly challenged perhaps with greater vigor from the communist rebels. What is important is that everv arrest
without warrant be tested as to its legality via habeas corpus proceeding. This Court. will promptly look into — and all other
appropriate courts are enjoined to do the same — the legality of the arrest without warrant so that if the conditions under Sec.
5 of Rule 113, Rules of Court, as elucidated in this Resolution, are not met, then the detainee shall forthwith be ordered
released; but if such conditions are met, then the detainee shall not be made to languish in his detention but must be promptly
tried to the end that he may be either acquitted or convicted, with the least delay, as warranted by the evidence.

A Final Word

This Resolution ends as it began, reiterating that mere suspicion of being a Communist Party member or a subversive
is absolutely not a ground for the arrest without warrant of the suspect. The Court predicated the validity of the questioned
arrests without warrant in these petitions, not on mere unsubstantiated suspicion, but on compliance with the conditions set
forth in Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court, a long existing law, and which, for stress, are probable cause and good faith of the
arresting peace officers, and, further, on the basis of, as the records show, the actual facts and circumstances supporting the
arrests. More than the allure of popularity or palatability to some groups, what is important is that the Court be right.

ACCORDINGLY, the motions for reconsideration of the decision dated 9 July 1990, are DENIED. This denial is FINAL.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 17748 March 4, 1922

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
GRACIANO L. CABRERA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Vicente Sotto for appellants.
Acting Attorney-General Tuason for appellee

MALCOLM, J.:

As one outcome of the tumultous uprising of certain members of the Philippine Constabulary to inflict revenge upon the police
of the city of Manila, charges of sedition were filed in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila against the participants in
the public disturbance. Convicted in the trial court of a violation of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, and sentenced
either to the maximum penalty or a near approach to the maximum penalty provided by the punitive provisions of that law, all
of the defendants have perfected an appeal to this court. A statement of the case and of the facts, an opinion on the pertinent
issues, and a judgement, if no reversible error be found, regarding the appropriate penalty, will be taken up in the order named.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS

On December 13, 1920, policemen of the city of Manila arrested a woman who was a member of the household of a
Constabulary soldier stationed at the Santa Lucia Barracks in this city. The arrest of the woman was considered by some of the
Constabulary soldiers as an outrage committed by the policemen, and it instantly gave rise to friction between members of
Manila police department and member of the Philippine Constabulary.

The next day, December 14, at about sunset, a policemen named Artemio Mojica, posted on Calle Real, in the District of
Intramuros, city of Manila, had an encounter with various Constabulary soldiers which resulted in the shooting of private
Macasinag of the Constabulary. Private Macasinag was seriously, and as afterwards appeared, mortally wounded.

The encounter between policemen Mojica and other companions of the Manila force and private Macasinag and other
companions of the Constabulary, with its grave consequences for a Constabulary soldier endangered a deep feeling of
resentment on the part of the soldiers at Santa Lucia Barracks. This resentment was soon converted into a desire for revenge
against the police force of the city of Manila. The officers of the Constabulary appear to have been aware of the state of
excitement among the soldiers the shooting of private Macasinag, Captain Page, the commanding officer of the Barracks,
increased the number of guards, and confined all the soldiers in the Barracks.

During the afternoon of the next day, December 15, 1920, a rumor spread among the soldiers in Santa Lucia Barracks to the
effect that policeman Mojica was allowed to continue on duty on the streets of Intramuros and that private Macasinag had died
as a consequence of the shot he received the night before. This rumor contributed in no small degree in precipitating a
movement for reprisal by the Constabulary soldiers against the policemen.

At about 7 o'clock in the evening of the same day, December 15, 1920, corporal Ingles of the Fourth Company approached
private Nicolas Torio who was then the man in charge of quarters, and asked him to let the soldiers out through the window of
the quarters of the Fourth Company. Private Torio was easily persuaded to permit private Francisco Garcia of the Second
Company to saw out the window bars of the quarters, in his charge, and to allow soldiers to escape through the window with
rifles and ammunition under the command of their sergeants and corporals. When outside of the quarters, these soldiers
divided into groups for attack upon the city police force.

One platoon of Constabulary soldiers apparently numbering about ten or twelve, on Calle Real, Intramuros, fired in the
direction of the intersection of Calles Real and Cabildo where an American policeman named Driskill was stationed, and was
taking with a friend named Jacumin, a field clerk in the United States Army. These two men were shot and died soon
afterwards. To the credit of policeman Driskill be it said, that although in a dying condition and in the face of overwhelming
odds, her valiantly returned the fire with his revolver. Jacumin was killed notwithstanding that in response to the command of
Constabulary, "Hands up!," he elevated both arms.

A street car happened to stop at this time at the corner of Calles Real and Cabildo. Without considering that the passengers in
the car were innocent passersby, the Constabulary squad fired a volley into the car, killing instantly the passenger named Victor
de Torres and gravely wounding three other civilian passengers, Gregorio Cailes, Vicente Antonio, and Mariano Cortes. Father
Jose Tahon, a priest of the Cathedral of Manila, proved himself a hero on this occasion for, against the command of the
Constabulary, he persisted in persuading them to cease firing and advanced in order that he might administer spiritual aid to
those who had been wounded.
The firing on Calle Real did not end at that time. Some minutes later, Captain William E. Wichman, assistant chief of police of
the city of Manila, riding in a motorcycle driven by policeman Saplala, arrived at the corner of Calles Real and Magallanes in
Intramuros, and a volley of shorts by Constabulary soldiers resulted in the instantaneous death of Captain Wichman and the
death shortly afterwards of patrolman Saplala.

About the same time, a police patrol came from the Meisic police station. When it was on Calle Real near Cabildo, in
Intramuros, it was fired upon by Constabulary soldiers who had stationed themselves in the courtyard of the San Agustin
Church. This attack resulted in the death of patrolmen Trogue and Sison.

Another platoon of the Constabulary, between thirty and forty in number, had in the meantime, arranged themselves in a firing
line on the Sunken Gradens on the east side of Calle General Luna opposite the Aquarium. From this advantageous position the
Constabulary fired upon the motorcycle occupied by Sergeant Armada and driven by policeman Policarpio who with
companions were passing along Calle General Luna in front of the Aquarium going in the direction, of Calle Real, Intramuros. As
a result of the shooting, the driver of the motorcycle, policeman Policarpio, was mortally wounded. This same platoon of
Constabulary soldiers fired several volleys indiscriminately into the Luneta police station, and the office of the secret service of
the city of Manila across Calles General Luna and Padre Burgos, but fortunately no one was injured.

General Rafael Crame, Chief of the Constabulary, and Captain Page, commanding officer of the Santa Lucia Barracks, and other
soldiers in the streets of Manila, and other soldiers one after another returned to the Barracks where they were disarmed. No
list of the names of these soldiers was, however, made.

In the morning of the next day, December 16, 1920, Colonel, Lucien R. Sweet of the Constabulary officers, and later by the
fiscals of the city of Manila, commenced an investigation of the events of the night before. He first ordered that all the soldiers
in Santa Lucia Barracks at that time, numbering some one hundred and eighty, be assembled on the parade ground and when
this was done, the soldiers were separated into their respective companies. Then Colonel Sweet, speaking in English with the
assistance of Captain Silvino Gallardo, who interpreted his remarks into Tagalog, made to all of the soldiers two statements.

What occurred on the occasion above described can best be told in the exact language of Colonel Sweet: "I assembled all four
companies in Santa Lucia Barracks and asked them to tell me which ones had been out the night before and which ones had
participated in the shooting, which they did, and to tell me the names of those who were with them and who were not then
present, which they did. I think there were seventy-two (seventy-three) present and they named five (four) others." Again the
witness said: "At first I asked all those who went out on the previous night for any purpose whatever to signify the fact by
stepping forward and gave them five minutes to think it over before doing so. To those who stepped forward that had gone out
for any purpose whatever I asked those who took part in the shooting the night before that in justice to themselves and to the
other men who had not taken part in it, and for the good of all concerned, that they step forward and they did." The names of
the four who took part (not five as stated by Colonel Sweet), but ho were taken to present, were noted by Captain Gallardo.

The statements of the seventy-seven soldiers were taken in writing during the afternoon of the same day, December 16. The
questionnaire prepared by the fiscal of the city of Manila was in English or Spanish. The questions and answers were, however,
when requested by the soldiers, translated not their dialects. Each statement was signed by the soldier making it in the
presence of either two or three witnesses.

Although the answers to the questions contained these statements vary in phraseology, in substance they are the same. One of
them, the first in numerical order, that of Sergeant Graciano L. Cabrera, taken in Spanish and interpreted into Tagalog, may be
selected into Tagalog, may be selected as typical of the rest, and is here literally transcribed:

1. Give your name, age, status, occupation, and residence. — Graciano I. Cabrera, 254 years of age, single, sergeant of
the first company of the General Service of the Constabulary, residing in Santa Lucia Barracks.

2. To what company of the Philippine Constabulary do you belong? — First Company, General Service of the
Constabulary.]

3. Where were you garrisoned yesterday afternoon December 15,

1920? — In the Santa Lucia Barracks.
4. Did you leave the barracks at about 7 o'clock yesterday evening? — Yes, sir.

5. For what reason, and where did you go? — We went in search of the policemen and secret service men of Manila. It
has been sometime now since we have been having standing grudge against now since we have been having a standing
grudge against the police of Manila. The wife of one of our comrades was first arrested by the policemen and then
abused by the same; and not content with having abused her, they gave this woman to an American; after this
incident, they arrested two soldiers of the Constabulary, falsely accusing them of keeping women of bad reputation;
after this incident, came the shooting of Macasinag, a shooting not justified, because we have come to know that
Macasinag did nothing and the policemen could have arrested him if they desired. Moreover, the rumor spread among
us that the police department of Manila had given orders to the policemen to fire upon any Constabulary soldier they
found in the streets, and we believe that the rumor was not without foundation since we noticed that after the
Macasinag affair, the policemen of Manila, Contrary to the usual practice, were armed with carbines or shotguns. For
this reason we believe that if we did not put an end to these abuses of the policemen and secret service men, they
would continue abusing the constabulary. And as an act of vengeance we did what we had done last night.

6. How did you come to join your companions who rioted last night? — I saw that almost all the soldiers were jumping
through the window and I was to be left alone in the barracks and so I followed.

7. Who asked you to join it? — Nobody.

8. Do you know private Crispin Macasinag, the one who was shot by the Manila police the night before last on Calle
Real? — Yes, Sir, I know him because he was our comrade.

9. Were you offended at the aggression made on the person of said soldier? — Indeed, yes, not only was I offended,
but my companions also were.

10. State how many shots you fired, if nay, during the riot last night. — I cannot tell precisely the number of shots I
fired because I was somewhat obfuscated; all I can assure you is that I fired more than once.

11. Do you know if you hit any policeman or any other person?-If so state whether the victim was a policeman or a
civilian. — I cannot tell whether I hit any policeman or any civilian.

12. State the streets of the city where you fired shots. — I cannot given an exact account of the streets where I fired my
gun. I had full possession of my faculties until I reached Calle Victoria; afterwards, I became aware that I was bathed
with perspiration only upon reaching the barracks.

13. What arms were you carrying and how much ammunition or how many cartidge did you use? — I Carried a carbine;
I cannot tell precisely the number of cartridges I used; however, I placed in my pocket the twenty cartridges belonging
to me and I must have lost.

14. How did you manage to leave the barracks? — By the window of the quarter of the Fourth Company, through the
grating which I found cut off.

15. Are the above statements made by you, voluntarily, freely, and spontaneously given? — Yes, sir.

16. Do you swear to said statements although no promise of immunity is made to you? — Yes, sir; I confirm them,
being true.

(Sgd.) G. L. CABRERA.

Witnesses:

S. GALLARDO.
LAURO C. MARQUEZ.
The defendants were charged in one information filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila with the crime of
sedition, and in another information filed in the same, court, with the crimes of murder and serious physical injuries. The two
cases were tried separately before different judges of first instance.

All of the accused, with the exception of eight, namely, Francisco Ingles, Juan Noromor, P. E. Vallado., Dionisio Verdadero, and
Paciano Caña, first pleased guilty to the charge of sedition, but later, after the first witness for the prosecution had testified, the
accused who had pleaded guilty were permitted, with the consent of the court, to substitute therefor the plea of not guilty. the
prosecution, in making out it case, presented the seventy-seven confession of the defendants, introduced in evidence as
Exhibits C to C-76, conclusive, and with the exception of those made by Daniel Coralde, Nemesio Gamus, and Venancio Mira, all
were identified by the respective Constabulary officers, interpreters, and typists who intervened in taking them. The
prosecution further relied on oral testimony, including eyewitness to the uprising.

The attorneys for the accused presented two defenses. The first defense was in favor of all the defendants and was based on
the contention that the written statements Exhibits C to C-76 were not freely and voluntarily made by them. The second
defense was in favor of the defendants Vicente Casimiro, Salvador Gregorio, Roberto Palabay, Cipriano Lizardo, Ildefonso de la
Cruz, Roque Ebol, Francisco Garcia, Benigno Tagavilla, Paciano Caña, Juan Abarques, Genaro Elayda, Hilario Hibabar, P. E.
Vallado, Patricio Bello, Felix Liron, Bonifacio Eugenio, Nemesio Deceña, Venancio Mira, Baldomero Rodriguez, Juan Noromor,
Maximo Perlas, and Victor Atuel, and was to the effect these men did not take part in the riot.

The court overruled the special defenses and found that the guilt of the accused had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
All of the defendants were sentenced to serve the maximum imprisonment of ten years provided by section 6 of Act No. 292.
The court, however, distinguished fines from that of a defendants Francisco Garcia, a private and the eight corporals E. E.
Agbulos, Francisco Ingles, Clemente Manigdeg, Juan Abarques, Pedro V. Matero, Juan Regalado, Hilario Hibalar and Genaro
Elayda, upon each of whom a fine of P5,000 was imposed, and of the three sergeants Graciano L. Cabrera, Pascual Magno, and
Bonifacio Eugenio, upon each of whom a fine of P10,000 was imposed. The costs were divided proportionately among the
defendants.

For the statement of the cases and the facts which has just been made, we are indebted in large measure to the conspicuously
fair and thoughtful decisions of the Honorable George R. Harvey who presided in the sedition case and of the Honorable Carlos
Imperial who presided in the murder case. As stipulated by the Attorney-General and counsel for the defendants, the proof is
substantially the same in both cases.

In all material respects we agree with the findings of fact as made by the trial court in this case. The rule is again applied that
the Supreme Court will not interfere with the judgement of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of the opposing
witnesses, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstances of weight and influence which has been overlooked or
the significance of which has been misinterpreted. (U. S. vs. Ambrosio and Falsario [1910], 17 Phil., 295; U. S. vs. Remegio
[1918], 37 Phil., 599.) In the record of the case at bar, no such fact or circumstance appears.

OPINION

An assignment of five errors is made by counsel for the defendants and appellants. Two the assignment of error merit little or
no consideration. Assignment of error No. 2 (finding its counterpart in assignments of error 5 and 6 in the murder case), in
which it is attempted to establish that Vicente Casimiro, Salvador Gregorio, Paciano Caña, Juan Abarquez, Mariano Garcia, Felix
Liron, Bonifacio Eugenio, Patricio Bello, Baldomero Rodriguez, Roberto Palabay, Juan Noromor, Roque Ebol, Ildefonso de la
Cruz, Cipriano Lizardo, Francisco Garcia, Genaro Elayda, Hilario Hibalar, P. M. Vallado, Maximo Perlas, and Benigno Tagavilla, did
not leave the Santa Lucia Barracks in the night of the tragedy, is predicated on the special defense raised in the lower court for
these defendants and three other and which was found untenable by the trial court. Any further discussion of this question falls
more appropriately under consideration of assignment of error No. 4, relating to the conspiracy between the accused.

Assignment of error No. 3, relating to the finding of the trial court that it had not been shown that the policemen were not
aware of the armed attack of the Constabulary, However, we find that the evidence supports this conclusion of the trial court.

The three pertinent issues in this case relate to: (1) the Admission of Exhibits C to C-76 of the prosecution (assignment of error
No. 2, murder case); (2) the conspiracy between the accused (assignment of error No. 4, sedition case; assignment of error No.
3, murder case); and (3) the conviction of the accused of a violation of the Treason and Sedition Law (assignment of error No. 5,
sedition case).

1. The admission of exhibits C to C-76

Appellants claim that fraud and deceit marked the preparation of the seventy seven confessions. It is alleged that some of the
defendants signed the confessions under the impression that those who had taken part in the affray would be transferred to
Mindanao, and that although they did not in fact so participate, affirmed that they because of a desire to leave Manila; that
other stepped forward "for the good of the service" in response to appeals from Colonel Sweet and other officers; while still
others simply didn't understand what they were doing, for the remarks of Colonel Sweet were made in English and only
translated into Tagalog, and their declarations were sometime taken in al language which was unintelligible to them. Counsel
for the accused entered timely objection to the admission in evidence of Exhibits C to C-76, and the Attorney-General is worn in
stating otherwise.

Section 4 of Act No. 619, entitle "An Act to promote good order and discipline in the Philippines Constabulary," and reading:
"No confession of any person charged with crime shall be received as evidence against him by any court of justice unless be first
shown to the satisfaction of the court that it was freely and voluntarily made and not the result of violence, intimidation, threat,
menace or of promises or offers of reward or leniency," was repealed by the first Administrative Code. But the same rule of
jurisprudence continues without the law. As he been repeatedly announced by this and other courts, "the true test of
admissibility is that the confession is made freely, voluntarily, and without compulsion or inducement of any sort". If the
confession is freely and voluntarily made, it constitutes one of the most effectual proofs in the law against the party making it.
(Wilson vs. U. S.[1896], 162 U. S. 613.)The burden of proof that he confession was not voluntarily made or was obtained by
undue pressure is on the accused. (U. S. vs Zara [1912, 42 Phil., 308.)

What actually occurred when the confessions were prepared is clearly explained in the records. The source of the rumor that
the defendant would be transferred to Mindanao if they signed the confession is not established. One the contrary it is
established that before the declaration were taken, Lieutenant Gatuslao in response to a query had shown the improbability of
such a transfer. With military orders given in English and living in the city of Manila where the dialect is tagalog, all of the
defendants must have understood the substantial part of Colonel Sweet's remarks. What is more important, there could be no
misunderstanding as to the contents of the confessions as written down. In open court, sixty-nine of the defendants reiterated
their guilt. The officers who assisted in the investigation were of the same service as the defendants in their own men.

It must also be remembered that each and everyone of the defendants was a member of the Insular Police force. Because of
the very nature of their duties and because of their practical experience, these Constabulary soldiers must have been aware of
the penalties meted out for criminal offenses. Every man on such a momentous occasion would be more careful of his actions
than ordinarily and whatever of credulity there is in him, would for the moment be laid aside. Over and above all desire for a
more exciting life, over and above the so called esprit de corps, is the instinct of self preservation which could not but be fully
aroused by such stirring incidents too recent to be forgotten as had occurred in this case, and which would counsel prudence
rather than rashness; secretiveness rather than garrulity.

These confessions contain the statements that they were made freely and voluntarily without any promise of immunity. That
such was the case was corroborated by the attesting witnesses whose credibility has not been successfully impeached.

We rule that the trial court did not err in admitting Exhibits C to C-76 of the prosecution.

2. The conspiracy between the accused

The contention of the appellants is that evidence is lacking of any supposed connivance between the accused. Counsel
emphasizes that in answer to the question in the confession, "who asked you to join the riot," each of the accused answered,
"Nobody." The argument is then advanced that the appellants cannot be held criminally responsible because of the so called
psychology of crowds theory. In other words, it is claimed that at the time of the commission of the crime the accused were
mere automatons obeying the insistent call of their companions and of their uniform. From both the negative failure of
evidence and the positive evidence, counsel could deduce the absence of conspiracy between the accused.
The attorney-General answers the argument of counsel by saying that conspiracy under section 5 of Act No. 292 is not an
essential element of the crime of sedition. In this law officer for the people may be on solid ground. However, this may be,
there is a broader conception of the case which reaches the same result.

It is a primary rule that if two or more persons combine to perform a criminal act, each is responsible for all the acts of the
other done in furtherance of the common design; and " the result is the same if the act is divided into parts and each person
proceed with his part unaided." (U. S. vs Maza [1905], 5 Phils., 346; U. S. vs. Remegio [1918] 37 Phil., 599; decision of supreme
court of Spain of September 29, 1883; People vs. Mather [1830], 4 Wendell, 229.)

Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances which vary according to the
purposes to be accomplished. It be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, one performing one part
and another part of the same, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of that same object, one will be justified in the
conclusion that they were engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object. (5 R. C. L., 1088.) Applied to the facts before us, it is
incontestable that all of the defendants were imbued with the same purpose, which was to avenge themselves on the police
force of the city of Manila. A common feeling of resentment animated all. A common plan evolved from their military training
was followed.

The effort to lead the court into the realm of psychology and metaphysics is unavailing in the face of actualities. The existence
of a joint assent may be reasonably inferred from the facts proved. Not along are the men who fired the fatal shots responsible,
not along are the men who admit firing their carbines responsible, but all, having united to further a common design of hate
and vengeance, are responsible for the legal consequences therefor.

We rule that the trail court did not err in declaring that there a c conspiracy between the accused.

3. The conviction of the accused of a violation of the Treason and Sediton Law

Sedition, in its more general sense, is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. The Philippine law on the subject
(Act No. 292) makes all persons guilty of sedition who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force or outside of
legal methods any one of vie objects, including that of inflicting any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any
official or agent of the Insular Government or of Provincial or Municipal Government. The trial court found that the crime of
sedition, as defined and punished by the law, had been committed, and we believe that such finding is correct.

Counsel's contention that in order for there to be a violation of subdivision 3 of section 5 of Act No. 292 it is and necessary that
the offender should be a private citizen and the offended party a public functionary, and that what really happened in this
instance was a fight between two armed bodies of the Philippine Government, is absolutely without foundation. Subdivison 3 of
section 5 of the Treason and Sedition Law makes no distinction between the persons to which it applies. In one scene there was
a fights between two armed bodies of the Philippine Government, but it was an unequal fight brought on by the actions of the
accused.

We rule that the trial court did not err in convicting the accused of the violation of section 5, paragraph 3, of Act No. 292 of the
Philippine Commission.

JUDGEMENT

The Treason and Sedition Law provides as a penalty for any person guilty of sedition as defined in section 5 of the law,
punishment by fine of not exceeding P10,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding ten years, or both. In this connection, it will be
recalled that the court sentenced each of the private soldiers Salvador Gregorio, Juan Noromor, Patricio Bello, Nemesio Deceña,
Baldomero Rodriguez, P. E. Vallado, Pedro Layola, Felix Liron (Cenon), Dionisio Verdadero, Lorenzo Tumboc, Casiano Guinto,
Victor Atuel, Venancio Mira, Benigno Tagavilla, Masaway, Quintin Desierto, Teofilo Llana, Timoteo Opermaria, Maximo Perlas,
Cornelio Elizaga, Roberto Palabay, Roque Ebol, Benito Garcia, Honorio Bautista, Crisanto Salgo, Francisco Lusano, Marcelino
Silos, Nicanor Perlas, Patricio Rubio, Mariano Aragon, Silvino Ayngco, Guillermo Inis, Julian Andaya, Crispin Mesalucha,
Prudencio Tasis, Silvino Bacani, Petronilo Antonio, Domingo Peroche, Florentino Jacob, Paciano Caña, Domingo Canapi, Arcadio
San Pedro, Daniel Coralde, Nemesio Camas, Luis Borja, Severino Elefane, Vicente Tabien, Marcos Marquez, Victorino Merto,
Bernabe Sison, Eusebio Cerrudo, Julian Acantilado, Ignacio Lechoncito, Pascual Dionio, Marcial Pelicia, Rafael Nafrada, Zacarias
Bayle, Cipriano Lizardo, Ildefonso de la Cruz, Juan Miranda, Graciano Zapata, Felisardo Favinal, Gaspar Andrade, Felix Lamsing,
and Vicente Casimiro, to suffer imprisonment for ten years, and to pay one seventy-seventh part of the costs; the private
Francisco Garcia, who sawed the bars of the window through which the defendants passed from Santa Lucia Barracks and each
of the corporals E. E. Agbulos, Francisco Ingles, Clemente Manigdeg, Juan Abarquez, Pedro V. Mateo, Juan Regalado, Hilario
Hibalar and Genaro Elayda, to suffer imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of P5,000 and one seventy-seventy of the
costs; and each of the sergeants Graciano L. Cabrera, Pascual Magno, and Bonifacio Eugenio, to suffer imprisonment for ten
years and to pay a fine of P10,000 and one seventy-seventy of the costs. The trial judge appears to have made a reasonable
exercise of the discretion which the law reposes in him.

We cannot bring to a close this disagreeable duty without making our own the pertinent observations found in the decision of
the trial court in this case. Therein, along toward the closed of his learned opinion, Judge Harvey said:

Rarely in the history of criminality in this country has there been registered a crime so villainous as that committed by
these defendants. The court is only concerned in this case with crime of sedition. The maximum penalty prescribed by
Act No. 292, imprisonment for ten year and a fine P10,000, is not really commensurate with the enormity of the
offense. Impelled by hatred, employing their knowledge of military sciences which is worthy of a better cause, and in
disregard of the consequences to themselves and their innocent loved ones, and using the means furnished to them by
the Government for the protection of life and property, they sought by force and violence and outside of legal methods
to avenge a fancied wrong by an armed and tumultuous attack upon officials and agents of the government of the city
of Manila.

Although in view of the sentence which is being handed down in the murder case, affecting these same defendants and
appellants, it would seem to be a useless formality to impose penalties in this case, yet it is obviously our duty to render
judgement appealed from, with one seventy-seventh of the costs of this instance against each appellant. So ordered.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5803 November 29, 1954

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
NARCISO UMALI, ET AL., defendants.
NARCISO UMALI, EPIFANIO PASUMBAL and ISIDRO CAPINO, defendants-appellants.

Jose P. Laurel, Cipriano Primicias, Alejo Mabanag, Manuel Concordia, P.M. Stuart Del Rosario, Tomas R. Umali, Eufemio E. De
Mesa and Edmundo T. Zepeda for appellants.
Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Martiniano P. Vivo for appellee.

MONTEMAYOR, J.:

Narciso Umali, Epifanio Pasumbal, and Isidro Capino are appealing directly to this Tribunal from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Quezon province finding them guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder,
arson and robbery, and sentencing each of them to "life imprisonment, other accessories of the law, to indemnify jointly and
severally Marcial Punsalan in the amount of P24,023; Valentin Robles in the amount of P10,000; Yao Cabon in the amount of
P700; Claro Robles in the amount of P12,800; Pocho Guan in the amount of P600; the heirs of Domingo Pisigan in the amount
of P6,000; the heirs of Locadio Untalan in the amount of P6,000; Patrolman Pedro Lacorte in the amount of P500; Lazaro Ortega
in the amount of P300; Hilarion Aselo in the amount of P300; Calixto Rivano in the amount P50; Melecio Garcia in the amount
of P60; and Juanito Lector in the amount of P90, each to pay one fifteenth of the costs, without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency due to the nature of the principal penalty that is imposed upon them."

The complex crime of which appellants were found guilty was said to have been committed during the raid staged in the town
of Tiaong, Quezon, between 8:00 and 9:00 in the evening of November 14, 1951, by armed men. It is not denied that such a
raid took place resulting in the burning down and complete destruction of the house of Mayor Marcial Punzalan including its
content valued at P24,023; the house of Valentin Robles valued at P10,000, and the house of one Mortega, the death of
Patrolman Domingo Pisigan and civilians Vicente Soriano and Leocadio Untalan, and the wounding of Patrolman Pedro Lacorte
and five civilians; that during and after the burning of the houses, some of the raiders engaged in looting, robbing one house
and two Chinese stories; and that the raiders were finally dispersed and driven from the town by the Philippine Army soldiers
stationed in the town led by Captain Alzate.

To understand the reason for and object of the raid we have to go into the political situation in Tiaong not only shortly before
that raid but one year or two years before it. Narciso Umali and Marcial Punzalan were old time friends and belonged to the
same political faction. In the general elections of 1947 Umali campaigned for Punzalan who later was elected Mayor of Tiaong.
In the elections of 1949 Punzalan in his turn campaigned and worked for Narciso Umali resulting in the latter's election as
Congressman. However, these friendly relations between the two did not endure. In the words of Punzalan, Narciso Umali who
as Congressman regarded himself as the political head and leader in that region including Tiaong, became jealous because of his
(Punzalan's) fast growing popularity among the people of Tiaong who looked to him instead of Umali for political guidance,
leadership, and favors. In time the strain in their relations became such that they ceased to have any dealings with each other
and they even filed mutual accusations. According to Punzalan, in May 1950, Umali induced about twenty-six special policemen
of his (Punzalan's) to flee to the mountains with their arms and join the Huks, this is in order to discredit Punzalan's
administration; that he was later able to contact two of his twenty-six policemen and tried to persuade them to return to the
town and to the service, but they told him that they and their companions would not surrender except and with through the
intervention of Congressman Umali, and so Punzalan had to seek Umali's intervention which resulted in the surrender of the 26
men with their firearms; that thereafter Umali wanted to have their firearms, claiming that they all belonged to him from his
guerrilla days when he was a colonel, and that after liberation he had merely loaned them to the municipal authorities of Tiaong
to help keep peace and order; and that the refusal of Punzalan to grant Umali's request further strained their relations, and
thereafter Umali would not speak to him even when they happened to meet at parties.

On September 19, 1951, the Chief of Police of Punzalan disarmed four of Umali's men, including his bodyguard Isidro Capino
who were then charged with illegal possession of firearms. Umali interceded for his men and Col. Gelveson, Provincial
Commander, sent a telegram stating that the firearms taken away from the men were licensed. As a result the complaint was
dismissed. This incident was naturally resented by Umali and spurred him to have a showdown with Punzalan.

Then the elections of 1951 (November 13) approached and Punzalan ran for reelection. To oppose him, and to clip his political
wings and definitely blast his ambition for continued power and influence in Tiaong, Umali picked Epifanio Pasumbal, his trusted
leader.

The pre-election campaign and fight waged by both factions — Punzalan and Pasumbal, was intense and bitter, even ruthless.
The election was to be a test of political strength and would determine who was who in Tiaong, — Umali or Punzalan. Umali
spoke at political meetings, extolling the virtues of Pasumbal and the benefits and advantages that would accrue to the town if
he was elected, at the same time bitterly attacking Punzalan, accusing him of dishonesty, corruption in office, abuse of power,
etc. At one of those meetings he told the audience not to vote for Punzalan because he would not be elected and that even if
he won the election, he would not sit for blood will flow, and that he (Umali) had already prepared a golden coffin for him
(Punzalan). After denying the charges, in retort, Punzalan would say that Umali as a Congressman was useless, and that he did
not even attend the sessions and that his chair in Congress had gathered dust, even cobwebs.

To help in the Umali-Pasumbal campaign, Amado Mendoza who later was to play the role of star witness for the prosecution,
was drafted. He was a compadre of Pasumbal and had some experience in political campaigns, and although he was not exactly
a model citizen, being sometimes given to drunkenness, still, he had the gift of speech and persuasion. In various political
meetings he delivered speeches for Pasumbal. He was ever at the back and call of Umali and Pasumbal, and naturally he
frequented the latter's houses or headquarters. The result of the elections plainly showed that Punzalan was the political
master and leader in Tiaong. He beat Pasumbal by an overwhelming majority of 2,221 votes. Naturally, Umali and Pasumbal
were keenly disappointed, and according to the evidence, adopted measures calculated to frustrate Punzalan's victory, even as
prophesied by Umali himself in one of his pre-election speeches about blood flowing and gold coffin.

Going back to the raid staged in Tiaong on November 14, 1951, it is well to make a short narration of the happenings shortly
before it, established by the evidence, so as to ascertain and be informed of the reason or purpose of said raid, the persons,
behind it, and those who took part in it. According to the testimony of Amado Mendoza, in the morning of November 12th, that
is, on the eve of the election, at the house of Pasumbal's father, then being used as his electoral headquarters, he heard Umali
instruct Pasumbal to contact the Huks through Commander Abeng so that Punzalan will be killed, Pasumbal complying with the
order of his Chief (Umali) went to the mountains which were quite near the town and held a conference with Commander
Abeng. It would seem that Umali and Pasumbal had a feeling that Punzalan was going to win in the elections the next day, and
that his death was the surest way to eliminate him from the electoral fight.

The conference between Pasumbal and Commander Abeng on November 12th was witnessed and testified to by Nazario
Anonuevo, a Huk who was under Commander Abeng, and who later took an active part in the raid. In the evening of the same
day, Mendoza heard Pasumbal report to Umali about his conference with Commander Abeng, saying that the latter was
agreeable to the proposition and had even outlined the manner of attack, that the Huks would enter the town (Tiaong) under
Commander Lucio and Aladin, the latter to lead the sector towards the East; but that Commander Abeng had suggested that
the raid be postponed because Pasumbal may yet win the election the following day, thereby rendering unnecessary the raid
and the killing of Punzalan.

Continuing with the testimony of Amado Mendoza, he told the court that as per instructions of Umali he went to the house of
the latter, in the evening of November 14th, the day following the election, with the result of the election already known,
namely, the decisive victory of Punzalan over Pasumbal. He was told by Umali to come with him, and Pasumbal and the three
boarded a jeep with Pasumbal at the wheel. They drove toward the Tiaong Elementary School and once there he (Mendoza)
was left at the school premises with instructions by Umali to wait for Commander Abeng and the Huks and point to them the
house of Punzalan. After waiting for sometime, Abeng and his troops numbering about fifty, armed with garands and carbines,
arrived and after explaining his identity and his mission to Abeng, he had led the dissidents or part of the contingent in the
direction of Punzalan's house and on arriving in front of the bodega of Robles, he pointed out Punzalan's house and then
walked toward his home, leaving the Huks who proceeded to lie flat in a canal. Before reaching his house, he already heard
shots, so, he evacuated his family to their dugout in his yard. While doing so he and his wife Catalina Tinapunan saw armed men
in the lanzones grove just across the street from their house, belonging to the father of Umali, and among those men they saw
Congressman Umali holding a revolver, in the company of Huk Commander Torio and about 20 armed men. Afterwards they
saw Umali and his companions leave in the direction of Taguan, by way of the railroad tracks.

It would appear from the evidence that the raid was well-planned. As a diversionary measure, part of the attacking force was
deployed toward the camp or station of the Army (part of 8th B.C.T.) in the suburbs and the camp was fired upon, not exactly to
destroy or drive out that Army unit but to keep it from going to the rescue and aid of the main objective of the raid. The rest of
the raiding party went toward Punzalan's house and attacked it with automatic weapons, hand grenades, and even with bottles
filled with gasoline (popularly known as Molotov's cocktail). It was evident that the purpose of the attack on Punzalan's house
was to kill him. Fortunately, however, and apparently unknown to the attackers and those who designed the raid, at six o'clock
that morning of November 14th Punzalan and his Chief of Police had left Tiaong to go to Lucena, the capital, to report the
results of the election to the Governor.

The attack on the house of Punzalan was witnessed and described by several persons, including policemen who happened to be
near the house. Policeman Tomas Maguare who was in front of the house saw Epifanio Pasumbal, Isidro Umali (brother of
Congressman Umali) and Moises Escueta enter the gate of Punzalan's house and take part in the firing. Policeman Pedro
Lacorte who was stationed as guard at the gate of Mayor Punzalan's house recognized defendant Isidro Capino as one of those
firing at the house. Lacorte said that he was guarding the house of Punzalan when he suddenly heard shots coming from the
sides of the house and going over to the place to investigate, he saw armed men in fatigue and shouting "burn the house of
Mayor Punzalan"; that he was hit on the left check and later Isidro Capino threw at him a hand grenade and he was hit in the
right forearm and in the right eye and became permanently blind in said eye. Mateo Galit, laundryman who was sitting inside a
jeep parked in front of the house of Punzalan recognized defendant Pasumbal as one of the attackers who, once in the yard said
ina loud voice as though addressing somebody in the house "Pare, come down." Mrs. Punzalan who was then inside the house
related to the court that at about eight in the evening while she was resting she heard shots and rapid firing. As a precaution
she took her children to the bathroom. Then she noticed that her house was being fired at because the glass window panes
were being shattered and she heard the explosion of a hand grenade inside the house, followed by flares in the sala and
burning of blankets and mosquito nets in the bedrooms and she noticed the smell of smoke of gasoline. Realizing the great
danger, she and the children ran out of the house and went to hide in the house of a neighbor.

Nazario Añonuevo declared in court that he was a farmer and was picked up and seized by Huk Commander Tommy sometime
in August 1951, and was taken to Mt. Banahaw in Laguna and mustered in the ranks of the Huks; that just before the elections
of November 13, 1951, he saw Pasumbal come to the mountains near Tiaong and talk to Commander Abeng; that on November
14th by order of Commander Abeng he with other Huks left Mt. Banahaw for Tiaong; that when they crossed the Osiw River
already near Tiaong, they were met by Pasumbal and Capino; that when they were at the outskirts of the town, he and the
party were told by Commander Tommy to attack the 8th BCT camp in Tiaong to prevent the sending of army help to the town
proper; that he took part in firing on the camp which returned the fire in the course of which he was wounded; and that
because of his wound he could not escape with his companions to the mountains when the Army soldiers dispersed and drove
them out of the town and so he was finally captured by said soldiers.

As to defendants Pasumbal and Capino, their participation in and responsibility for the raid was duly established not only by the
going of Pasumbal on November 12th to the mountains following instructions of Umali, and conferring with Commander Abeng
asking him to raid Tiaong and kill Punzalan, but also by the fact that Pasumbal and Capino in the afternoon or evening of
November 14th met the Huks at the Osiw River as the dissidents were on their way to Tiaong and later Pasumbal and Capino
were seen in the yard of Punzalan firing at the house with automatic weapons and hand grenades.

What about Umali? His criminal responsibility was also established, tho indirectly. We have the testimony of Amado Mendoza
who heard him instructing Pasumbal to contact Commander Abeng and ask him to raid Tiaong and kill Punzalan. The rest of the
evidence is more or less circumstantial, but nonetheless strong and convincing. No one saw him take part in the firing and
attack on the house of Punzalan; nor was he seen near or around said house. Because of his important position as
Congressman, perchance he did not wish to figure too prominently in the actual raid. Besides, he would seem to have already
given out all the instructions necessary and he could well stay in the background. However, during the raid, not very far from
Punzalan's house he was seen in the lanzonesan of his father, holding a revolver and in the company of about 20 armed men
with Huk Commander Torio, evidently observing and waiting for developments. Then he and his companions left in the
direction of Taguan.

Umali and Pasumbal, however, claim that during the raid, they were in the home of Pasumbal in Taguan, about seven
kilometers away from Tiaong where a consolation party was being held. There is ample evidence however to the effect that
they arrived in Pasumbal's home only around midnight. An Army soldier named Cabalona who happened to be in Pasumbal's
home arriving there earlier in the evening and who was invited to take some refreshments said that he did not see the two men
until they arrived about midnight when the Army reinforcements from Lucena passed by on their way to Tiaong. Thus, we have
this chain of circumstances that does not speak in favor of Umali, or Pasumbal for that matter. But this is not all. There is the
rather strange and unexplained, at least not satisfactorily, behaviour of Umali and Pasumbal that evening of November 14th.
Assuming for a moment as they claim, that the two were not in Tiaong at the commencement of the raid between 8:00 and
9:00 p.m., and during the whole time the raid lasted, and that they were all that time in the home of Pasumbal in Taguan, still,
according to their own evidence, they were informed by persons coming or fleeing from Tiaong that there was a raid going on
there, and that some houses were burning. As a matter of fact, considering the promixity of Taguan to Tiaong, a distance of
about seven kilometers and the stillness and darkness of the night, the fire and the glow produced by the burning of three
houses and the noise produced by the firing of automatic weapons and the explosion of the hand grenades and bottles of
gasoline, could and must have been seen and heard from Taguan. The natural and logical reaction on the part of Umali and
Pasumbal would have been to rush to Tiaong, see what had really happened and then render help and give succor to the
stricken residents, including their own relatives. It will be remembered that the houses of the fathers of Umali and Pasumbal
were in Tiaong and their parents and relatives were residing there. And yet, instead of following a natural impulse and urge to
go to Tiaong, they fled in the opposite direction towards Candelaria. And Umali instead of taking the road, purposely avoided
the same and preferred to hike through coconut groves so that upon arriving in Candelaria, he was wet, and spattered and very
tired. Had they wanted to render any help to Tiaong they could have asked the police authorities of Candelaria to send a rescue
party to that town. Or better still, when the army reinforcements from Lucena sent at the instance of Punzalan, who at about
eight or nine that evening was returning to Tiaong from Lucena, found at the barrio or sitio of Lusakan near Tiaong that there
was fighting in the town, he immediately returned to Lucena to get army reinforcements to relieve his town, was passing by
Taguan, where they were, Umali and Pasumbal could have joined said reinforcements and gone to Tiaong. Instead the two
continued on their way to the capital (Lucena) where before dawn, they went and contacted Provincial Fiscal Mayo, a first
cousin of Umali, and Assistant Fiscal Reyes and later had these two officials accompany them to the Army camp to see Col.
Gelveson, not for the purpose of asking for the sending of aid or reinforcement to Tiaong but presumably to show to the
prosecution officials, specially the Army Commander that they (Umali and Pasumbal) had nothing to do whatsoever with the
raid. Umali said he was trying to avoid and keep clear of Tiaong because he might be suspected of having had some connection
with the raid and might be the object of reprisal. As a matter of fact, according to Umali himself, while still in Taguan that
evening and before he went to Candelaria, somebody had informed him that Col. Legaspi of the Army was looking for him.
Instead of seeking Col. Legaspi and find out what was wanted of him, he left in the opposite direction and fled to Candelaria and
later to Lucena, and the next day he took the train for Manila. This strange act and behaviour of the two men, particularly
Umali, all contrary to impulse and natural reaction, and what other people would ordinarily have done under the circumstances,
prompted the trial court in its decision to repeat the old saying "The guilty man flees even if no one pursues, but the innocent
stands bold as a lion." We might just as well reproduce that portion of the decision of the trial court, to wit:

. . . Considering the fact that Taguan is very near Tiaong so that even taking it for granted as true, for the sake of
argument, that the said accused were really at the party of Pasumbal on the night in question, that would not prevent
them from being in Tiaong between 8 and 9. Besides, why was it that night the hasag lamp was replaced with candles
when the reinforcements passed through Taguan about midnight of November 14, 1951. Why did Congressman Umali
and company instead of going to Tiaong which was the scene of the attack hurried towards Candelaria, after the
reinforcement has passed and went to the house of Felix Ona walking through a muddy path under the coconut
groves? Why was Umali afraid to pass through the provincial road and preferred a muddy road instead? Was he trying
to conceal himself? Why did Pasumbal and company also go to the house of Ona? Why did they go to the house of
Felix Ona instead of going to the house of Manalo who could have given them better protection? And again why did
Congressman Umali and the other co-accused repaired and sought the company of Fiscal Reyes in going at such an
early hour to the Army authorities, did they fear any reprisal? From whom? Why did Umali go to Manila from Lucena
on November 16, 1951? "The guilty man flees even if no one pursues, but the innocent stands bold as a lion."

At first blush it would appear rather unbelievable that Umali and Pasumbal, particularly the former should seek the aids of the
Huks in order to put down and eliminate their political enemy Punzalan. It would seem rather strange and anomalous that a
member of Congress should have friendly relations with this dissidents whom the Government had been fighting all these years.
But if we study the evidence, it will be found that the reason and the explanation are there. As already stated, during the
Japanese occupation, to further the resistance movement, guerillas were organized in different parts of the Philippines. One of
these was the guerilla unit known as President Quezon's Own Guerillas (PQOG) operating in the provinces of Tayabas (now
Quezon) and Laguna. Umali, Pasumbal, Commander Abeng and even Punzalan himself were officers in this guerilla unit, Umali
attaining the rank of colonel, and Pasumbal and Punzalan that of Lieutenant-colonel, Pasumbal then being known as "Panzer".
After Liberation, Abeng joined the dissidents, and became a Huk Commander. It was not unnatural that Umali and Pasumbal
should continue their friendship and association with Commander Abeng and seek his aid when convenient and necessary.
Umali admitted that he knew Huk Commander Kasilag. Graciano Ramos, one of the witnesses of the prosecution told the court
that way back in May 1950, in a barrio of San Pablo City he saw Umali confer with Commander Kasilag, which Commander after
the conference told his soldiers including Ramos that Umali wanted the Huks to raid Tiaong, burn the presidencia and kidnap
Punzalan. Of course, the last part of the testimony may be regarded as hearsay, but the fact is that Umali conferred with a Huk
commander as early as 1950. Then we have the fact that on November 18 of the same year Punzalan wrote to President
Quirino denouncing the congressman Umali for fraternizing with the Huks and conducting a campaign among them in
preparation for the elections the following year. And we may also consider the fact that the town of Tiaong stands at the
foothills of Mt. Banahaw where the dissidents under Commander Abeng, Tommy, Lucio, Aladin, and others had their hideout,
so that it was not difficult for residents of Tiaong like Umali and Pasumbal to communicate and even associate with dissidents in
that region.

After carefully considering all the evidence in the case, we are constrained to agree with the trial court that the three appellants
are guilty. Besides, the determination of this case, in great measure, hinges on the credibility of witnesses. The learned trial
court which had the opportunity of observing the demeanor of witnesses on the stand and gauging their sincerity and
evaluating their testimony, decided the Government witnesses, including Amado Mendoza, to be more credible and reliable.
And we find nothing in the record to warrant correction or reversal of the stand and finding of the trial court on the matter. We
have not overlooked the rather belated retraction of Amado Mendoza made on October 31, 1952, about a year and 9 months
after he testified in court. Considering the circumstances surrounding the making of this affidavit or retraction, the late date at
which it was made, the reasons given by him for making it and the fact that when he testified in court under the observation
and scrutiny of the trial court bearing in mind that he was the star witness for the prosecution and his testimony naturally
extremely important, and the trial court after the opportunity given to it of observing his demeanor while on the witness stand
had regarded him as a witness, sincere, and his testimony truthful, and considering further the case with which affidavits of
retraction of this nature are obtained, we confess that we are not impressed with such retraction of Mendoza.

The last point to be determined is the nature of the offense of offenses committed. Appellants were charged with and
convicted of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery. Is there such a
complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, etc? While the Solicitor General in his brief claims that appellants are guilty of
said complex crime and in support of his stand "asks for leave to incorporate by reference" his previous arguments in opposing
Umali's petition for bail, counsel for appellants considered it unnecessary to discuss the existence or non-existence of such
complex crime, saying that the nature of the crime committed "is of no moment to herein appellants because they had
absolutely no part in it whatsoever". For that present, and with respect to this particular case, we deem it unnecessary to
decide this important and controversial question, its consideration and determination to another case or occasion more
opportune, when it is more directly and squarely raised and both parties given an opportunity to discuss and argue the question
more adequately and exhaustively. Considering that, assuming for the moment that there is no such complex crime of rebellion
with murder, etc., and that consequently appellants could not have been legally charged with, much less convicted of said
complex crime, and the information should therefore, be regarded as having charged more than one offense, contrary to Rule
106, section 12 and Rule 113, section 2 (e), of the Rules of Court, but that appellants having interposed no objection thereto,
they were properly tried for and lawfully convicted if guilty of the several, separate crimes charged therein, we have decided
and we rule that the appellants may properly be convicted of said several and separate crimes, as hereinafter specified. We feel
particularly supported and justified in this stand that we take, by the result of the case, namely, that the prison sentence we
impose does not exceed, except perhaps in actual duration, that meted out by the Court below, which is life imprisonment.

We are convinced that the principal and main, tho not necessarily the most serious, crime committed here was not rebellion
but rather that of sedition. The purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up arms was not
exactly against the Government and for the purpose of doing the things defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal code under
rebellion. The raiders did not even attack the Presidencia, the seat of local Government. Rather, the object was to attain by
means of force, intimidation, etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public
official, namely, Punzalan was then Mayor of Tiaong. Under Article 139 of the same Code this was sufficient to constitute
sedition. As regards the crime of robbery with which appellants were charged and of which they were convicted, we are also of
the opinion that it was not one of the purposes of the raid, which was mainly to kidnap or kill Punzalan and destroy his house.
The robberies were actually committed by only some of the raiders, presumably dissidents, as an afterthought, because of the
opportunity offered by the confusion and disorder resulting from the shooting and the burning of the three houses, the articles
being intended presumably to replenish the supplies of the dissidents in the mountains. For these robberies, only those who
actually took part therein are responsible, and not the three appellants herein. With respect to the crime of multiple frustrated
murder, while the assault upon policeman Pedro Lacorte with a hand grenade causing him injuries resulting in his blindness in
one eye, may be regarded as frustrated murder; the wounding of Ortega, Anselo, Rivano, Garcia and Lector should be
considered as mere physical injuries. The crimes committed are, therefore, those of sedition, multiple murder, arson, frustrated
murder and physical injuries. The murders may not be qualified by evident premeditation because the premedition was for the
killing of Punzalan. The result was the killing of three others intended by the raiders (People vs. Guillen, 47 Off). The killing may,
however, be qualified by treachery, the raiders using firearms against which the victims were defenseless, with the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The three murders may be punished with the penalty of death. However, because
of lack of the necessary votes, the penalty should be life imprisonment.

We deem it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised by the appellants in their brief.

In conclusion, we find appellants guilty of sedition, multiple murder, arson, frustrated murder and physical injuries. For the
crime of sedition each of the appellants is sentenced to 5 years of prision correctional and to pay a fine of P4,000; for each of
the three murders, each of the appellants is sentenced to life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of each victim in the
sum of P6,000; and for the arson, for which we impose the maximum penalty provided in Article 321, paragraph 1, of the
Revised Penal Code, for the reason that the raiders in setting fire to the buildings, particularly the house of Punzalan they knew
that it was then occupied by one or more persons, because they even and actually saw an old lady, the mother of Punzalan, at
the window, and in view of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, each of the appellants is sentenced to reclusion
perpetua and to pay the indemnities mentioned in the decision of the lower court. It shall be understood, however, the
pursuant to the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code the duration of all penalties shall not exceed 40 years. In view
of the heavy penalties already imposed and their long duration, we find it unnecessary to fix and impose the prison sentences
corresponding to frustrated murder and physical injuries; however, the sums awarded the victims (Lacorte, Ortega, Anselo,
Rivano, Garcia and Lector), by the court below will stand. With these modifications, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with costs.