People Vs. Amado Hernandez

PEOPLE VS AMADO HERNANDEZ, ET. AL. GR 6025-26 18 July 1957 FACTS: On March 15, 1945, the appellants Amado Hernandez and other thirty-one (31) defendants accused of conspiring, confederating, and cooperating which each other to rise publicly and take arms against the Republic of the Philippines, were charged in criminal cases of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Amado V. Hernandez and the co-conspirators were then officers or otherwise associated with the Congress of Labor and Organizations (CLO), an active agency, organ, and instrumentality of the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P). It was alleged that together with the HUKBALAHAP they participated in such armed public uprising, for the purpose of removing the territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to the government by 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, have 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. The RTC of Manila charged the appellants with the crime of “Rebellion complexed with Murder, Arson and Robbery”. A petition for bail was filed by Defendant Appellant Amado Hernandez on June 26, 1954, and renewed on December 22, 1955. A similar petition filed on December 28, 1953 had been denied by a resolution of this court dated February 2, 1954. The petition for bail was denied, although not stated, the same was due mainly to the fact that Hernandez is charged with, and has been convicted of, rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robberies, for which the capital punishment, it is claimed, may be imposed, although the lower court sentenced him merely to life imprisonment. The defense contended that rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the crime of rebellion can be complexed with murders, arsons and robberies. 2. Whether or not bail may be granted to the defendant.

HELD: 1. Rebellion cannot be complexed with murders, arsons and robberies. According to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, one way of committing rebellion is by “engaging in war against the forces of the government and committing serious violence in the prosecution of said war. Being within the purview of “engaging in war and committing serious violence” said resort to arms with the resulting impairment or destruction of life and property constitutes not two or more offenses, but only one crime – that of rebellion plain and simple.

Article 48 finds no application in this case. It presupposes the commission of two or more crimes and does not apply when the culprit is guilty of only one crime as in this case. 2. Bail may be granted. The consideration is not only that evidence of guilt is strong but that the liability of the defendant calls for a capital punishment. Here, rebellion is punishable only by prison term of not exceeding twelve (12) years of prision mayor and a fine of P20,000.00. Hence, the defendant may be allowed to post bail.

Prepared by GROUP I Christine Joy Estropia Sarah Bianca Fernandez Andrea Geronga Ma. Cristina Javier Honeylyn Lovendino Rezin Majadillas