[G.R. Nos. L-6025-26. July 18, 1956.

]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ,
ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
CONCEPCION, J.
RELEVANT PROVISION: RPC Art 48, 134,135
ELEMENTS: (of Rebellion, Art134)
1. That there be:
a. Public uprising; and
b. Taking up of arms against the government
2. For the purpose of either:
a. Removing from the allegiance to said government or its laws:
i. The territory of the Philippines, or any part thereof, or
ii. Any body of land, naval or other armed forces; or
b. Depriving the Chief Executive or Congress wholly or partially of any of their
powers or prerogatives.
NATURE: petition for bail

FACTS:
 Hernandex et al. (31 defendants), were convicted by the lower courts of rebellion, w/
multiple murder, arsons and robberies
 Organizations they were found to be affiliated w/ (and took part in ‘rebellious’ activities
w/): Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO) w/c is an instrumentality of the Communist
Party of the Philippines (PKP); Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan (HMB, a.k.a.
Hukbalahaps/Huks)
 Defendants apparently took arms w/ the Huks to make 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, they also committed then and there committed acts of murder,
pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned destruction of private and public property
 The prosecution maintains 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 contends, among other things, that rebellion cannot be complexed with
murder, arson, or robbery.

ISSUES:
(1) WoN rebellion can be complexed w/ murder, arson, or robbery
(2) WoN defendants should be granted bail

HELD:
(1) NO. Consider first the following Articles of the RPC:
a. Art 48, RPC:“When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period.”
 i. presupposes the commission of 2 or more crimes, does not apply when the
culprit is guilty of only one crime
ii. a mere participant in the rebellion, who is not a public officer, should not
be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the promoters,
maintainers or leaders of the movement, or the public officers who join the
same, insofar as the application of this article is concerned
b. Art 135; RPC: “…any person, merely participating or executing the commands of
others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
period.”
i. The penalty is increased to prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000
for “any person who promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion or
insurrection or who, while holding any public office or employment, takes
part therein”: (1) “engaging in war against the forces of the government”,
(2) “destroying property”, or (3) “committing serious violence”, (4)
“exacting contributions or” (5) “diverting public funds from the lawful
purpose for which they have been appropriated”.
ii. Whether performed singly or collectively, these 5 classes of acts
constitute only one offense, and no more, and are, altogether, subject to
only one penalty — prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000.

Since all of the acts enumerated in Art 135 constitute only ONE offense, Art 48 cannot
apply since it presupposes the existence of TWO. In no occasion has the court ever
complexed the crime of rebellion. The rule is that the ingredients of a crime form part and
parcel thereof, and, hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either
separately therefrom or by the application of Art 48. (court uses several cases to show
how this rules is applicable to treason, then says the rule is even more applicable to
rebellion, basically, these violent acts are part of the crime, they are how one commits
them, they are inherent to the crime).

Citing Spanish and other foreign cases, the SC states that national, as well as
international, laws and jurisprudence overwhelmingly favor the proposition that common
crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense, are divested of their character as
“common” offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime of which they
are mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be punished separately from the principal
offense, or complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of a graver penalty.

Further, if Art 48 were to be used in this case, it would be unfavourable to the culprit, and
Art 48 was enacted for the purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a
penalty more severe than that which would be proper if the several acts performed by him
were punished separately. SC also states that simply because one act may constitute two
or more offenses, it does not follow necessarily that a person may be prosecuted for one
after conviction for the other, without violating the injunction against double jeopardy.

(2) YES. Since exclusion from bail in capital offenses is an exception to the otherwise
absolute right guaranteed by the constitution, the natural tendency of the courts has been
toward a fair and liberal appreciation of the evidence in the determination of the degree
 of proof and presumption of guilt necessary to warrant a deprivation of that right. In the
evaluation of the evidence the probability of flight is one other important factor to be
taken into account. The court took into account the ff. things: (1) Whether it appears that
in case of conviction the Defendant’s criminal liability would probably call for a capital
punishment (Answer: no clear showing); and (2) the probablility of flight (Answer:
possibility seems remote and nil). Additionally, the decision appealed from the
opposition to the motion in question do not reveal satisfactorily and concrete, positive act
of the accused showing, sufficiently, that his provincial release, during the pendency of
the appeal, would jeopardize the security of the State.

PETITION FOR BAIL GRANTED.

TL;DR SEPARATE OPINIONS

 Padilla—Bail shouldn’t be granted. After conviction for a capital offense, the

Defendant has absolutely no right to bail, because even before conviction a Defendant
charged with capital offense is not entitled to bail if the evidence of guilt is strong. Even
if the majority opinion that the crime charged in the information is rebellion only — a
non-capital offense — be correct, still the granting of bail after conviction is
discretionary, and I see no plausible reason for the reversal of this Court’s previous stand,
because the security of the State is at stake.
 Montemayor—Other crimes shouldn’t be absorbed by rebellion. The main
contention to why it cannot be complexed. is that it cannot be complexed as the acts
enumerated in Art 135 are inherent to rebellion (necessary means to commit it).
However, “necessary means” as interpreted by criminologists, jurists and legal
commentators, does not mean indispensable means, but merely the means by which a
crime is ordinarily committed. The logic is the same as why abduction or trespass to
dwelling are not necessary means to rape, they are simply ways the culprit used to
facilitate his crime. Applying Art 134’s description of rebellion, it may be committed by
merely rising publicly and taking arms against the government, thus acts mentioned in
Art 135 are not necessary means to committing the crime. (Montemayor agrees that bail
shouldn’t be granted though)
 Labrador -- Agrees with J. Padilla that bail shouldn’t be granted, and w/ J. Montemayor
that a complex crime of rebellion exists in our laws.