Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What happened:
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.
5. 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. ***
Enrile vs SalazarG.R. No. 92163June 5,
1990Facts:In the afternoon of February 27, 1990,
Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile
wasarrested by law enforcement officers led by
Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of
Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued
by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the Regional TrialCourt
of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No.
9010941.The warrant had issued on an
information signed and earlier that day filed by a
panel of prosecutors composed of Senior State
Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, State Prosecutor
FerdinandR. Abesamis and Assistant City
Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., charging
Senator Enrile, thespouses Rebecco and Erlinda
Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of
rebellion withmurder and multiple frustrated
murder allegedly committed during the period of
the failed coupattempt from November 29 to
December 10, 1990.Senator Enrile was taken to
xxx
xxx
(c)
harboring or concealing, or facilitating the
escape of, any person he knows, or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect has
committed any offense under existing penal laws
in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and
conviction.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
REBELLION
(ART. 134)
(2) Or to
deprive the
Chief
Executive or
the
Congress, in
whole or in
part, of any
of their
prerogatives. To seize or diminis
Purpose
h state control.
Public
officers/employ
ees and
Military, Police, or
Persons
private
any public
liable
citizens.
officers/employees.
A swift
Committed by attack accompanie
multitudes
d by violence,
Manner of rising publicly intimidation,
Commissio and taking
threat, strategy
n
up arms.
or stealth.
Target of The
The duly constituted
Attack
Government
authorities of the
Philippines, military
camps or
installations, or
communications
networks, or public
utilities (e.g:
NAWASA, PLDT,
LRT), or other
facilities necessary