PEOPLE VS AMADO HERNANDEZ (99 PHIL 515)
or robbery.
FACTS: About March 15, 1945, Amado Hernandez and other
appellants were accused of conspiring, confederating and
cooperating with each other, as well as with the thirty-
one(31) defendants charged in the criminal cases of the Court
of First Instance of Manila. Theywere accused of being
members of PKP Community Party of the Philippines which
wasactively engaged in an armed rebellion against the
government of the Philippines. With the party of
HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa mga Hapon), they
committed thecrime of rebellion causing murder, pillage,
looting plunder, etc., enumerated in 13 attackson
government forces or civilians by HUKS.
2. Crime Committed:
Rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies
3. Contention of the State:
The government, headed by the Solicitor General, argued that
the gravity of thecrime committed required the denial of bail.
Moreover, the complex crime charged by thegovernment
against Hernandez has been successfully imposed with other
arrestedcommunist leaders and was sentenced to life
imprisonment.
4. Contention of the Accused:
An appeal prosecuted by the defendants regarding the
judgment rendered by theCFI in Manila that rebellion cannot
be a complex crime with murder, arson or robbery.
RULING:
The court ruled that “murder, arson, and robbery are mere
ingredient of the crime of rebellion as means “necessary” for
the perpetration of the offense. Such common offense
isabsorbed or inherent of the crime of rebellion. Inasmuch as
the acts specified in Article 135constitutes, one single crime it
follows that said acts offer no occasion for the application of
Article 48 which requires therefore the commission of at least
two crimes.***
HERNANDEZ DOCTRINE
: Rebellion cannot be complexed with commoncrimes such as
killings, destruction of property, etc., committed on the
occasion and infurtherance thereof. The thinking is not
anymore correct more so that there is no legal basisfor such
rule now. Rebellion constitutes ONLY ONE CRIME. **
ISSUE: W/N rebellion can be complexed with murder, arson,
Held: NO!
RATIO:
Under the allegations of the amended information,
the murders, arsons and robberies described therein are
mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly
committed by HERNANDEZ, as means “necessary” for the
perpetration of said offense of rebellion and that the crime
charged in the amended information is, therefore, simple
rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple
murder, arsons and robberies. Under Article 1346 and 1357,
these five (5) classes of acts constitute only one offense, and
no more, and are, altogether, subject to only one penalty.
One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in
the words of said Article 135, is by “engaging in war against
the forces of the government” and “committing serious
violence” in the prosecution of said “war”. These expressions
imply everything that war connotes. Since Article 135
constitute only 1 crime, Article 48 doesn’t apply since it
requires the commission of at least 2 crimes.
JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS JAIME SALAZAR
FACTS: In February 1990, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was
arrested for the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple
frustrated murder. The warrant of arrest was issued by Judge
Jaime Salazar. Said crime arose from the failed coup attempts
against then president Corazon Aquino. There was no bail set
for Enrile due to the seriousness of the crime charged against
him. Enrile was then brought to Camp Karingal. Enrile later
filed a petition for habeas corpus questioning his detention
and alleging that the crime being charged against him is
nonexistent. He insists that there is no such crime as rebellion
with murder and multiple frustrated murder. Enrile invoked
the ruling in the landmark case of People vs Hernandez where
it was ruled that rebellion cannot be complexed with
common crimes such as murder; as such, the proper crime
that should have been charged against him is simple rebellion
– which is bailable.
Enrile also questioned the regularity of the issuance of the
warrant of arrest against him. He claimed that it only took
Judge Salazar one hour and twenty minutes (from the raffling
of the case to him) to issue the warrant. Enrile claimed that
such period is so short that it was impossible for the judge to
have been able to examine the voluminous record of the case
from the prosecution’s office – that being, the constitutional
provision that a judge may only issue a warrant of arrest after
personally determining the existence of probable cause has
not been complied with.
For the prosecution, the Solicitor General argued that the
Hernandez ruling should be abandoned and that it should be
ruled that rebellion cannot absorb more serious crimes like
murder.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Hernandez ruling should be
abandoned.
2. Whether or not Judge Salazar personally determined
probable cause in the case at bar.
HELD:
1. No, the said case is still good law. The Supreme Court also
noted that there was actually a previous law (P.D. 942) which
sought to abandon the Hernandez doctrine. The said law
provided that graver crimes may not be complexed with
rebellion. However, President Corazon Aquino repealed said
law (by virtue of the power granted to her by the 1986
Freedom Constitution). That being, the Hernandez doctrine,
which reflects the rebellion law under the Revised Penal
Code, still stands. The courts cannot change this because
courts can only interpret laws. Only Congress can change the
rebellion law (which the SC suggested in order to strengthen
the rebellion law). But as it stands, Enrile is correct, there is
no such crime as rebellion with murder. Common crimes such
as murder are absorbed. He can only be charged with
rebellion – which is bailable.
2. Yes. There is nothing irregular on the fact that Judge
Salazar only took an hour and twenty minutes to issue the
warrant from the time the case was raffled to him despite the
fact that the prosecution transmitted quite a voluminous
record from the preliminary investigation it conducted. It is
sufficient that the judge follows established procedure by
personally evaluating the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the prosecutor. Just because Judge
Salazar had what some might consider only a relatively brief
period within which to comply with that duty, gives no reason
to assume that he had not, or could not have, so complied;
nor does that single circumstance suffice to overcome the
legal presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed.
UMIL VS. RAMOS
187 SCRA 311; G.R. NO. 81567; 3 OCT 1991
FACTS: On 1 February 1988, military agents 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
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. 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 however it was disclosed later that the
true name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural. In view of
this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred to the
Regional Medical Servicesof the CAPCOM, for security
reasons. While confined thereat, he was positively identified
by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM
mobile patrols.
ISSUE: Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully arrested.
HELD: Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the
NPA, an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being
a continuing offense, the arrest without warrant is justified as
it can be said that he was committing as offense when
arrested. The crimes rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or
proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses
committed in furtherance therefore in connection therewith
constitute direct assaults against the state and are in the
nature of continuing crimes.
The right to preliminary investigation should be exercised by
the offender as soon as possible.Otherwise, it would be
considered as impliedly waived and the filing of information
can proceed. This sortof irregularity is not sufficient to set
aside a valid judgment upon a sufficient complaint and after a
tria lfree from error.
 SEDITION
PEOPLE vs CABRERA
GR ## GR No. 17748
Plaintiff/Appellee
: The People of the Philippine Islands,
Defendant/Appellant
: Graciano L. Cabrera et al. Date January 1, 2013
DOCTRINE
Sedition is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the
state.
(SHORT VERSION)
Because of certain incidents, the Philippine constabulary and
the Police of Manila had a rough relationship with each other.
The constabulary force had grudges against the Police force
of Manila. One night, the constabulary force went to attack
the Police force, killing and wounding several policemen and
civilians.
FACTS: The Philippine Constabulary has grudges against the
police of Manila and they want to inflict revenge for the
following reasons: (1) On December 13, 1920, a Manila police
arrested a woman who is a member of the household of a
constabulary soldier and was allegedly abused by the said
policeman. (2) Private Macasinag of the Constabulary was
shot by a Manila police and was mortally wounded. A day
after the incident, a rumor spread among the Constabulary
that the Police who shot Macasinag was back to his original
duties while Macasinag was declared dead. There were also
rumors that the said shooting was ordered. On the night of
December 15 some members of the Constabulary escaped
their barracks through a window (the saw out the window
bars). They had rifles and ammunitions and were organized in
groups under the command of their sergeants and corporals.
They attacked some Manila policemen in these specific
instances: (1) On Calle Real, Intramuros, a group of the
Constabulary shot and killed an American Policeman and his
friend. (2) The Constabulary indiscriminately shot at a passer-
by, causing a death and wounding most of the passengers.
(3) While riding a motorcycle driven by policeman Saplala,
Captain William E. Wichman (asst. chief of police in Manila)
was shot and killed together with Saplala
ISSUES/HELD
(1) Is there connivance/conspiracy between the accused-
YES
(2) Are the accused properly convicted of a violation of the
Treason and Sedition Law-
YES
RATIO
(1) Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of
indefinite acts, conditions, and circumstances which vary
according to the purposes to be accomplished. If it be proved
that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object,
one performing one part and another another part of the
same, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of
the same object, one will be justified in the conclusion that
they were engaged in a conspiracy to the effect that object. It
is incontestable that all of the defendants were imbued with
the same purpose, which was to avenge themselves on the
police force of Manila. A common feeling of resentment
animated all. (2) Sedition, in its more general sense, is the
raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. The
Philippine law on the subject makes all persons guilty of
sedition who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain
by force of outside of legal methods any one of five 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 a provincial or municipal government. The
counsel contested that it is necessary that the offender
should be a private citizen and the offended party a public
functioinary, and what really happened was a fight between
two armed bodies of the Philippine Government. The court
held that this contention is without foundation.
The Treason and Sedition Law makes no distinction between
the persons to which it applies. What is important is that
there is a public rising to incite or inflict any act of hate or
revenge upon the person or property of any official or agent
of the Insular government or of a provincial or municipal
government.
DECISION: .Judgment affirmed
 PEOPLE vs. UMALI
G.R. No. L-5803
November 29,1954

TOPIC: SEDITION (Art. 139)

PRINCIPLE: “What distinguishes sedition from rebellion is not
the extent of the territory covered by uprising but rather the
object at which the uprising aims.”

FACTS: On the eve of election, at the house o Pasumbal’s

father, then being used as electoral headquarters,
Congressman Umali instructed Pasumbal to contact the Huks
through Commander Abeng so that Punzalan would 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 election the next day, and that his death was the
surest way to eliminate him from electoral fight.
In the evening of the same, Pasumbal reported to Umali
about his conference with Commander Abeng, saying that the
latter was agreeable to the proposition and even outlined the
manner of attack.
After waiting for some time, Abeng and his troops numbering
about fifty, armed with garlands and cabines, arrived.
Congressman Umali, holding a revolver, was seen in the
company of Huks Commander Torio and about 30 armed
men. Then shots were heard. Afterwards they saw Umali and
his companions leave in the direction of Taguan, by way of
the railroad tracks.

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants are guilty of rebellion?

HELD: No, the Court is convinced that the principal and main,
though 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 things defined in Article 134 of
the Revised Penal Code. The raiders did not even attack the
Presidencia, the seat of the local Government. Rather, the
object was to attain by means o force, intimidation, etc., one
object , to wit: to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the
person or property o a public official, namely Punzalan who
was then mayor o Tiaong.