G.R. No. L-11813




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-11813 September 17, 1958 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. *JAIME SANTOS, alias* "La Perla", alias "Velasco", alias "Santos" ET AL., defendants. JAIME SANTOS,** appellant. Maximo V. Cuesta, Jr. and Antonio R. Ramos for appellant. Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for appellee. FELIX, J.: A total of 10 separate informations were filed before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, charging the defendants therein with the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, etc. One of those cases is No. 20379 of said Court entitled People of the Philippines versus Jaime Santos, alias "La Perla", alias "Velasco", alias "Santos"; Irineo Canlas, alias "Carson", alias "Dizon", alias "Arco", alias "Tuazon"; Jose Ferrer, alias "Pepe", alias "Ferrer"; Francisco Inocencio, alias "Pangilinan", alias "Lioning"; Onofre Quiambao, alias "Efren Quiambao", alias "Garson", alias "Garrison"; Estrellita Pangan, alias "Pangan", alias "Melensita"; Pedro Gamboa, alias "Peter", alias "Martov", alias "Mar"; Anacleto Suba, alias "Letty", alias "Suba"; Epifanio Nucup, alias "Remy"; Paras, alias "Defin", alias "Ordoñez", alias "Isay", alias "Say"; Luciano Figueroa, alias "Luz"; Felicisimo Saggal, alias "Teddy"; Felix Vicente, alias "Bugnot", alias "Valdez"; Filomena Canlas, alias "Mining", alias "Canlas"; and Crisostomo Maristela, alias "Villamor" alias "Henry". The amended information filed in this case followed a common pattern and charged the defendants with the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murders, arson, robberies and physical injuries. The indictment is couched as follows: That on or about the period comprised between August, 1947 and November, 1953, and on different dates and places in the Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of Honorable Court, and in other parts of the Country where the accused and their companions have chosen to carry out their rebellious activities, the above-named accused, together with about 231 others, conspiring and confederating together, and mutually one another, and providing themselves with unregistered firearms and weapons, namely, machineguns, submachineguns, hand grenades, carbines, pistols, rifles, shotguns, Springfields, and Japanese rifles, all members of the Hukbong Magpapalaya Ng Bayan (HMB) (People's Liberation Army), otherwise known as HUKS, an insurrectionary organization which is the military unit of the Communist Party in the Philippines (CPP), organized and designed purposely to overthrow the present constituted Government of the Republic of the Philippines through force, violence, threats and sabotage, and remove from the allegiance to said Government and/or its laws, the territory and the people of the Philippines or any portion thereof, having come to an agreement with their comrades, and decided to commit the crime of rebellion and therefore, conspiring among themselves and with the accused in Criminal Case No. 19166 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and acting in accordance with their conspiracy and in the furtherance thereof, and mutually helping one another, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, help and support the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) to rise publicly and take up arms against the Government of the Philippines or otherwise in such armed uprising for the purpose of removing the territory of the Philippines or portion thereof and/or the inhabitants of the Republic from their allegiance to the Government and laws thereof, as in fact the said Hukbong Magpapalaya Ng Bayan (HMB or the HUKS), pursuant to such conspiracy, have risen publicly and taken up arms against the Government of the Republic of the Philippines to attain said purpose by then and there making armed raids, sorties, ambushes, and attack against the Philippine Constabulary, the Police patrols of the different Battalion Combat Teams Armed Forces of the Philippines, the civilian guards and other detachments constituted and organized by said Government of the Republic of the Philippines, as well as upon ordinary civilians, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, have then and there, committed wanton acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned destruction of private and public properties, to create and spread disorder, terror, confusion, chaos and fear among the populace, and thus secured supplies and materials for the support and maintenance of the said uprising, to wit: (1) That on or about the 15th day of November, 1950, in the Municipality of Mangatarem, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with their fellow-members and companions of the People's Liberation Army, mutually aiding one another in pursuance of their aims, objectives and purposes stated above, with intent to gain, by means of force, threats and violence, with treachery and evident premeditation, did, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, rise publicly and with unregistered, firearms and weapons, sack, destroy, burn, rob, steal, plunder, occupy and enter by force of arms, intimidation and threats, the town and Government of the Municipality of Mangatarem, Province of Pangasinan, engaging in the course of said illegal and rebellious military operations, and encounter and battle with the Police and soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and as necessary and immediate consequence of which, Isidro Rosario, Teofilo Sison, Francisca Peralta, Beatriz de Vera, Simplicio Albino, Ramon Bato were killed; Eugenia Martinez, Irinea Martinez, Pfc. Eugenio Megis, Mrs. Bonifacio Cruz, and Pfc. Silvino Trinidad were wounded, and twenty (20) private houses were burned and destroyed. (2) That on or about the 1st day of May, 1950, in the Municipality of Aguilar, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together, acting jointly, and mutually aiding one another, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, commit robbery in band, arson, and murder of Liberato Fernandez. (3) That on or about the 2nd day of December, 1951 in the Municipality of Infanta, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, Flying Squad "A" Company, "B" Company and "C" Company of PC No. 24 under Commander Velasco, raided the town of Infanta, burned a portion of the town proper and looted thirty (30) assorted firearms. (4) That on or about the month of March, 1952, in the Municipality of Mabini, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, the above-named accused, jointly with their companions in People's Liberation Army, or HUKS, conspiring together and mutually aiding one another, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, assault, attack, and fire upon the Government troops thereat whom they considered as their enemies. (5) That on or about the 29th day of February, 1952, in the Municipality of Urbiztondo, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aboved-named accused, in the furtherance of their purpose of overthrowing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines by force and violence, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, and together with their companions in the People's Liberation Army or HUKS, did then and there, with evident premeditation and treachery, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, fire, rob, steal, sack, loot, plunder, and raid Government forces of Urbiztondo, Pangasinan. (6) That on or about the 22nd day of April, 1952, in the Municipality of San Clemente, Province of Tarlac, Philippines, the aboved-named accused, together with their companions in the People's Liberation Army or HUKS, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, assault, attack and fire upon the government troops and as necessary and immediate consequence of which, four civilians, Julita Salgado, Regino Estasyo, Placida Natividad, and Guillermo Larangan were killed; seven civilians, Fidel Pulmano, Demetria de Feliciano, Andres Toledo, Macario Gualberto, Pastor Domingo, Primo Onisano, and C. Salgado, and one enlisted man, Cpl. Tomas Bunaog, were seriously wounded. (7) That on or about the 11th day of May, 1951, in the Barrio of Bantocaling, Municipality of Mangatarem, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aboved-named accused, conspiring together acting jointly, and aiding one another did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery and evident premeditation, kill Adriano Saure, Eugenio Saure, Corazon Gusto and Eugenia Saure. (8) That on or about 24th day of May 1951, in the Magdalena mountains, Municipality of Mangatarem, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the aboved-named accused, conspiring together, acting jointly, and mutually aiding one another did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with treachery and evident premeditation, kill Pedro Rillon, Ceferino Rillon, Mariano Rillon, and Perfecto Rillon and also they committed the crimes of arson and robbery in band. (9) That on or about the 12th day of November, 1951, in the Barrio of Pogonsili, Municipality of Aguilar, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused acting jointly and mutually aiding one another did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery and evident premeditation, kill Primitivo Riparip, Carloss Senense, Pascual Senense and Candido Mondala. Contrary to law. Of the defendants in this case only Jaime Santos, Luciano Figueroa, Jose Ferrer, Francisco Inocencio and Pedro Gamboa were arrested; the others remained at large. Jaime Santos filed on October 29, 1954, a motion to quash the information on the ground that it accused him of a multiplicity of offenses, namely, simple rebellion AND other common crimes (such as multiple murders, robberies, arson and physical injuries) in the violation of the provision of Section 12, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court. This motion was overruled by the Court in its order of November 16, 1954, and the accused in this case as well as in 7 other cases were tried jointly as per agreement between the prosecution and the defendants therein. In the course of the hearing, 3 of the defendants in this case (No. 20379),i.e., Jose Ferrer, Francisco Inocencio and Pedro Gamboa pleaded guilty to the crime of simple rebellion after the information was amended by the Fiscal to charge them with only said offense, and were sentenced accordingly. Ten of the accused, namely, Ireneo Canlas, Onofre Quiambao, Efipanio Nucup, Paras (Christian name unknown), Felicismo Saggal, Estrelita Pangan, Anacleto Suba, Felix Vicente, Filomena Canlas and Crisostomo Maristela were at large and could not tried, so the case proceeded only with regard to Jaime Santos and Luciano Figueroa. Jaime Santos also offered to plead guilty of simple rebellion but the Fiscal refused to amend the information with respect to him. After hearing, the Court rendered judgment against these 2 defendants as follows: This Court finds the accused Jaime Santos, alias Velasco, alias La Perla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of rebellion, with multiple murder, arson, and robbery and pursuant to Art. 148, in relation to par. 7, Art. 13, and Art. 64, par. 4, all of the revised Penal Code, and in accordance with the persuasive precedent set in the in the Politburo case of Jose Lava, Angel Baking, and others similarly situated (Crim. Case No. 14071, CFI, Manila), this accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; with he corresponding accessory penalties provided by law; to indemnify the heirs of Teofilo Sison, Beatriz de Vera, Isidro Rosario, Simplicio Albino, and Francisca Peralta, in the amount of P6,000 for each of said victims, or a total of P30,000 for all of said victims; and to pay the proportional costs of this case. Let this accused be credited with one-half (1/2) of his preventive imprisonment. This Court finds the accused Luciano Figueroa, alias Luz, innocent of the complex crime of rebellion, with multiple murder, etc., but finds him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal association, as defined and punished in Art. 147 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of (6) months of arresto mayor, with the corresponding accessory penalty, and to pay the proportionate costs of this case. As he has been a detention prisoner for many times more than twice the period of the penalty here imposed on him, let him, let him be forthwith released. The instant case is hereby provisionally dismissed as to the other ten (10)accused, namely, Ireneo Canlas, Onofre Quiambao, Estrelita Pangan, Anacleto Suba, Efipanio Nucup, Paras (Christian name not given), Felicisimo Saggal, Felix Vicente, Filomena Canlas, and Crisostomo Maristela, all still at large, with proportionate costs de oficio. From this decision, only Jaime Santos appealed to this Court and in instance his counsel maintains that the lower Court erred: (1) In not sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment of 1 year, 1 month and 10 days of prision correccional. (2) In imposing upon the appellant the penalty of life imprisonment; and (3) In not following the doctrine laid down in the cases of People vs. Hernandez (52 Off. Gaz. [12] 5506; 99 Phil; 515) and People vs. Geronimo(53 Off. Gaz., [1] 68; 100 Phil., 90). Appellant Santos does not controvert the findings of fact of the trial court so the case is limited to the single issue whether or not there exists a complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, etc., defined and punished under the Revised Penal Code. Before touching upon this point, We wish to state that according to the trial Judge, out of the 9 other crimes or group of crimes that were complexed with rebellion in the information filed in this case, the evidence produced to support the participation of appellant therein was limited to those committed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and more particularly referred to as the raids of Mangatarem, Pangasinan, on November 15, 1950 (No. 1); of Aguilar, Pangasinan, on May 1950 (No. 2); of Labrador, Pangasinan, on October 30, 1950 (which is not covered by the information); of Infanta, Pangasinan, on December 2, 1951 (No. 3); and of Urbiztondo, Pangasinan, on February 12, 1952 (it is to be noted that the raid of Urbiztondo referred to under No. 5 of the information is said to have taken place on February 29, 1952, could not appropriately be taken into account). In the decision appealed from, the trial Judge further states that the defendant Jaime Santos admitted in his confession that he participated in the raids of Aguilar, Labrador and Mangatarem in the province of Pangasinan, and of Camp Macabulos in Tarlac as well as of the Acoje Mining Company in Zambales (Exh. A-Jaime Santos), which were made beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court a quo. Appellant, however, repudiated this confession claiming that he was compelled by the Constabulary, by force and strategem, to sign various confessions without knowing the contents thereof. Whatever the case may be, We find that according to the averments of the information and the weight of the evidence produced, the acts perpetrated in the raid of November 15, 1950 in the municipality of Mangatarem (No. 1) were in pursuance of the aims, objectives, and purposes of overthrowing by force the constituted Government of the Republic of he Philippines and are therefore absorbed by the crime and cannot be considered as independent common crimes. The same thing can be said of the acts committed in the attack of Aguilar on May 11, 1950 (No. 2), in the raid of Infanta on December 2,1951, (No. 3), and in the raid of Urbiztondo on February 12, 1952 (No. 5), even if the evidence on this latter raid could be taken into consideration. Anyway, and even if the other crimes said to have been committed in the course of the raids mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the amended information could be considered as independent common crimes committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court a quo, appellant could not be convicted thereof, as We did in the case of People vs. Geronimo, 53 Off. Gaz.[1] 68; 100 Phil., 90 and the latter case at bar, appellant has objected to the information on the ground of the multiplicity of offenses charged therein in violation of Section 2-(e) of Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court. There is no question that appellant Jaime Santos committed the crime of rebellion, but as this Court has already held in the cases of People vs. Amado V. Hernandez, et al., 52 Off. Gaz. [12] 5506; 99 Phil., 515, and the later case of People vs. Geronimo, supra (by a voting of 7 against 4) this crime cannot be complexed with other common crimes, because the latter are either absorbed by the crime of rebellion if committed in pursuance of the aims, purposes and objectives of the rebels and in furtherance of their intention to overthrow the duly constituted government by force, or are independent common crimes which had no connection with the rebellion and must be separately prosecuted in the proper court within the territorial jurisdiction of which the same had been committed. The Solicitor General in his brief recognizes and yields to the doctrines We have laid down in the above-mentioned jurisprudence and recommends that the decision appealed from be modified holding that the lower Court erred in finding appellant guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, arson, and robbery and that the appellant should be only found guilty of simple rebellion. This attitude of the prosecution constitutes a lesson to the trial Judge on the respect and deference that decisions of this Superiority deserve. As may be noticed from the decision in the Hernandez and Geronimo cases, which had already been promulgated when the decision of the trial Judge in the case at bar was rendered on November 28, 1956, the respective opinions of the individual Justices of this Court were fully expressed and properly outlined. In the case of People vs. Geronimo, the writer of said Decision took pains to indicate, for the benefit of the Bench and Bar, how each of the members of the Court voted on the particular points involved therein, and it was evident from the exposition of the individual opinions of the Justices of this Court, arrived at after a careful, extensive and mature deliberation, that the doctrines then laid down as a result thereof, were unalterable and final as long as the composition of the Court remain the same as it was, or unless, of course, the law would changed. Yet the lower Court, disagreeing with the principles laid down by this Tribunal on this matter, preferred to impose his own criterion on the flimsy pretext that said decisions were not yet final as the Solicitor General had filed motions for clarification and that the opinion of this Court was divided. Now, if a judge of a lower Court feels, in the fulfillment of his mission of deciding cases, that the application of a doctrine promulgated by this Superiority is against his way of reasoning, or against his conscience, he may state his opinion on the matter, but rather than disposing of the case in accordance with his personal views he must first think that it is his duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Highest Court of the Land, and that any deviation from a principle laid down by the latter would unavoidably cause, as a sequel, unnecessary inconveniences, delays, and expenses to the litigants. And if despite of what is here said a Judge, by delicate or acute qualms of conscience, still believes that he cannot follow Our rulings, then he has no other alternative than to place himself in the position that he could properly avoid the duty of having to render judgment on the case concerned (Art. 9, C.C.), and he has only one legal way to do that. The penalty provided for the offense of rebellion is prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000. (Art. 135, par 1, Revised Penal Code). Considering, however, that the appellant offered to plead guilty if charged only of that offense, the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt should be appreciated in his favor and there being no aggravating circumstance to offset this mitigating circumstance, that penalty shall be imposed in its minimum period(Art. 64, par. 2 Revised Penal Code). Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed from is hereby modified by finding appellant guilty only of rebellion and sentencing him to the penalty guilty only of rebellion and sentencing him to the penalty of 7 years, of prision mayor, to the accessories of the law, and to pay a fine of P10,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in view of the nature of the imprisonment penalty imposed upon him. Appellant is further sentenced to pay the costs. It is so ordered. Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.. Reyes, A. J., concurs in the result. Separate Opinions PADILLA, J., dissenting: I dissent from the majority opinion for the same reasons stated in my concurring and dissenting opinion in the case of People vs. Geronimo, 53 Off. Gaz., 68, 100 Phil., 90. MONTEMAYOR, J., dissenting: I dissent for the same reasons given in my dissenting opinion in the case of People vs. Hernandez, et al. (52 Off. Gaz., [12] 5506; 99 Phil., 515), and in my concurring and dissenting opinion in the in the case of People vs. Geronimo 53 Off. Gaz., [1] 68; 100 Phil., 90). Incidentally, I wish to register my disagreement to that portion found on pages 10-12, wherein the trial Judge is given a lengthy and stern admonition, yea, a lecture, because of his failure or refusal to follow in deciding the case, the doctrine laid down by the majority opinion in the case of People vs. Hernandez, supra. I agree with the writer of the majority opinion in the present case that the rule and usual procedure is for judges of inferior courts to abide by and follow the law as interpreted by this Tribunal, regardless of their private opinions and convictions. However, when the interpretation or opinion of this Tribunal is far from being unanimous, like in the Hernandez case, and considering the fact that even the highest court of the land occasionally reverses itself, not only due to a change in the membership thereof, but also to a change in opinion of the Justices themselves, perchance to attune their opinion to changing times, conditions and public policy, I believe that inferior courts should be permitted now and then to depart from similar opinions, doctrines or interpretations of a superior Tribunal, for that is one and a direct way of provoking a reexamination of an important legal question, and giving the Court of last resort an opportunity of either reaffirming the old doctrine or abandoning it, and adopting a new one. It may be mentioned, in addition, that the trial Judge in not following and applying the ruling of this Tribunal (majority) would appear not to have wantonly ignored said ruling, much less defied superior authority, but on the other hand, gave his reasons, to me not bad ones, for acting as he did. Endencia, J., concurs. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation