-
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they have withdrawn their appeal.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
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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,
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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. 1wp h1.
t
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
(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.
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
(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".
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
(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)
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
(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)
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
(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
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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.
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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 serender 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.
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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.
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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.
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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.
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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.
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur. Padilla, Barrera and
Regala, JJ., took no part.
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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 CARIO, 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
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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.
R E S O L U T I O N
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;
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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.
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 The writ of habeas corpus exists as a speedy
and effective remedy 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.
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 The law expressly allowing arrests witho 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
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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 probable cause of
guilt of the person to be arrested.10 A reasonable suspicion
therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good
faith on the 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, Bian, 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
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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.
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 believe that the confidential 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
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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.
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 An 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
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
AdrianHighlight
-
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 liable. 24 But if they do not strictly comply with
the said conditions, the arresting officers can be held liable for
the crime of arbitrary 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)
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 Espiritu was arrested 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 o
