1. P v Hernandez GR No.

L-6025 May 30, 1964

Rebellion/Insurrection
Facts:

Respondent Amado Hernandez, a member of the CPP and President of the Congress of
Labor Organizations, re-filed a petition for bail in this case for his conviction of the crime of
rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robberies.
The prosecution contends to deny this again because the capital punishment may be
imposed. The defense, however, contends that rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, arson
and robbery.

The Information states that the “… murders, arsons and robberies allegedly perpetrated by
the accused “as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and
in furtherance thereof.”
Issue:
W/N the defense’s contention is tenable.
Held:
Yes. Rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, arson, etc.

Under Article 135 RPC, rebellion may be committed by "engaging in war against the forces
of the government" and "committing serious violence" in the prosecution of said war". These
expressions imply everything that war connotes, namely: resort to arms, requisition of property
and services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damages to property,
physical injuries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and unhappiness that war leaves in its
wake.

Being within the purview of "engaging in war" and "committing serious violence", said act of
resorting to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction of life and property—when alleged
in the information as ingredients of and committed in furtherance of rebellion—constitutes neither
two or more offenses, nor a complex crime. There is only one crime – rebellion; and it has only
one penalty as prescribed under Art. 135.

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, could not be punished separately from the principal
offense, or complexed with the same to justify the imposition of a graver penalty. (Personal Note:
This is known as the political offense doctrine.)